ArticleCureus2026
Development and Validation of the Healthcare Expenditure and Location Dynamics in Acute Febrile Illness (HEAL-AFI) Tool: A Community-Based Cohort Study With a Special Focus on Dengue and Chikungunya in the Urban Slum of Delhi, India.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCost-of-illness (COI) studies quantify the economic burden of diseases, yet existing tools often lack standardized cost domains and contextual adaptation. We developed and validated the Cost of Healthcare Expenditure Questionnaire (CHEQ), a generic tool, and its adaptation for acute febrile illness (HEAL-AFI), tailored to dengue and chikungunya in Delhi slum communities. METHODOLOGY: Conducted in a resettlement colony of Northeast Delhi, this study followed a multistage process with five iterative rounds. Round 1 involved item generation after the literature review. In Round 2, eight experts assessed content validity using Lawshe's method. Round 3 reassessed content validity and translated the tool. Round 4 tested face validity and feasibility among 32 participants and eight interviewers. Round 5 evaluated reliability via test-retest after 12 days using Cohen's κ, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Cronbach's α. Data were collected on KoboCollect and analyzed in IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 26.0.
resultsExpert review retained 74 items for CHEQ (76 for HEAL-AFI), with CVI improving from 0.78 (Round 2) to 0.92 (Round 3). Face validity demonstrated good clarity and ease of use, with a mean administration time of 24.3 ± 5.1 minutes (T1) and 23.7 ± 4.8 minutes (T2). Reliability was substantial for categorical variables (κ = 0.63-0.79; agreement 72-84%) and excellent for continuous variables (ICC = 0.82-0.94). Internal consistency was high across domains (Cronbach's α = 0.78-0.89).
conclusionCHEQ and HEAL-AFI are validated, reliable, and feasible tools for capturing household healthcare expenditures. CHEQ provides a standardized framework across diseases, while HEAL-AFI contextualizes costs for acute febrile illnesses (AFIs) with geospatial integration. These tools can strengthen COI research and may guide equitable health policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.