ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2026
Cost-effectiveness of the IMPALA monitoring system for hospitalised children in low-resource settings: a pragmatic before-and-after study.
Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStaff shortages, limited training and inadequate hospital equipment often delay responses to patient deterioration in low-resource settings. The IMPALA continuous monitoring system was developed to support proactive care for critically ill children in such settings. This study evaluated IMPALA cost-effectiveness compared with current practice manual intermittent monitoring from provider and societal perspectives.
methodsWe conducted an economic evaluation based on a before-and-after cohort of children (0-180 months) admitted to Zomba Central Hospital (ZCH) and St. Luke's Hospital (SLH), Malawi (2022-2024), where IMPALA was implemented in high-dependency units (HDUs). Targeted maximum likelihood estimation assessed percentage point (pp) differences in mortality, critical illness events (CIEs), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and costs (medical, non-medical, indirect). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness probabilities were calculated for different willingness-to-pay thresholds.
resultsAt ZCH paediatric ward, 1840 pre-IMPALA and 6255 post-IMPALA children were included; 248 and 736 were admitted to the HDU. Ward mortality decreased (from 3.8% to 2.8%), with an adjusted 1.9 pp reduction (95% CI -3.8 to -0.6). At ZCH-HDU, mortality slightly increased (from 8.1% to 9.0%), but IMPALA was associated with an adjusted 9.8 pp reduction (95% CI -26.5 to 5.0), a 47.1 pp decrease in CIEs (95% CI -52.9 to -41.8), and 5.4 DALYs averted (95% CI -14.2 to 3.1). At SLH paediatric ward, 930 pre-IMPALA and 1126 post-IMPALA children were included. Mortality in SLH decreased (from 4.0% to 2.1%), with an adjusted 1.6 pp reduction (95% CI -3.2 to -0.2), a 25.5 pp decrease in CIEs (95% CI -30.1 to -20.9) and 1.0 DALYs averted (95% CI -1.9 to -0.1). Provider and societal costs decreased in both wards, but not in the HDU. IMPALA was dominant in wards and slightly more costly but more effective in the HDU (ICERs -$22.5-$0.4 per life saved). Cost-effectiveness probabilities ranged from 0.8 to 1.0 in wards and 0.3-1.0 in the HDU.
conclusionIMPALA was highly cost-effective, reducing mortality by >40%, morbidity by >50%, increasing DALYs averted, shortening hospital stays and lowering costs, with spillover benefits from HDUs to wards.
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.