Cost-effectiveness and affordability of community mobilisation through women’s groups and quality improvement in health facilities (MaiKhanda trial) in Malawi

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

Jolene Skordis-Worrall⁵  Gianluca Baio³  Anthony Costello⁵  Rachael Hunter¹  Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli⁵  Neha Batura⁵  Charles Makwenda⁴  Lumbani Banda⁴  Austin Bondo⁴  Sungwook Kim⁵  Bejoy Nambiar⁵  Anni-Maria Pulkki-Brännström²  Tim Colbourn⁵ 

[1] Research Department of Primary Care & Population Health, UCL Priment Clinical Trials Unit, Royal Free Campus, London NW3 2PF, UK;Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå, 901 87, Sweden;Department of Statistical Science, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 6BT, UK;Parent and Child Health Initiative (PACHI), Amina House, Western Wing – Second Floor, Capital City, Lilongwe 3, Malawi;UCL Institute for Global Health, 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N 1EH, UK

关键词: Malawi;    Future scenarios;    Scale-up;    MaiKhanda;    Quality improvement;    Women’s groups;    Community mobilisation;    Affordability;    Cost-effectiveness;   

Others  :  1109952
DOI  :  10.1186/s12962-014-0028-2

 received in 2014-08-22, accepted in 2014-12-18,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Understanding the cost-effectiveness and affordability of interventions to reduce maternal and newborn deaths is critical to persuading policymakers and donors to implement at scale. The effectiveness of community mobilisation through women’s groups and health facility quality improvement, both aiming to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality, was assessed by a cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in rural Malawi in 2008–2010. In this paper, we calculate intervention cost-effectiveness and model the affordability of the interventions at scale.

Methods

Bayesian methods are used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of the community and facility interventions on their own (CI, FI), and together (FICI), compared to current practice in rural Malawi. Effects are estimated with Monte Carlo simulation using the combined full probability distributions of intervention effects on stillbirths, neonatal deaths and maternal deaths. Cost data was collected prospectively from a provider perspective using an ingredients approach and disaggregated at the intervention (not cluster or individual) level. Expected Incremental Benefit, Cost-effectiveness Acceptability Curves and Expected Value of Information (EVI) were calculated using a threshold of $780 per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted, the per capita gross domestic product of Malawi in 2013 international $.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness of CI, FI, and combined FICI was $79, $281, and $146 per DALY averted respectively, compared to current practice. FI is dominated by CI and FICI. Taking into account uncertainty, both CI and combined FICI are highly likely to be cost effective (probability 98% and 93%, EVI $210,423 and $598,177 respectively). Combined FICI is incrementally cost effective compared to either intervention individually (probability 60%, ICER $292, EIB $9,334,580 compared to CI). Future scenarios also found FICI to be the optimal decision. Scaling-up to the whole of Malawi, CI is of greatest value for money, potentially averting 13.0% of remaining annual DALYs from stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths for the equivalent of 6.8% of current annual expenditure on maternal and neonatal health in Malawi.

Conclusions

Community mobilisation through women’s groups is a highly cost-effective and affordable strategy to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality in Malawi. Combining community mobilisation with health facility quality improvement is more effective, more costly, but also highly cost-effective and potentially affordable in this context.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Colbourn et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Colbourn T, Lewycka S, Nambiar B, Anwar I, Phoya A, Mhango C: Maternal Mortality in Malawi, 1977–2012. BMJ Open 2013, 3:e004150.
• [2]National Statistical Office (NSO), ICF Macro: Malawi Demographic and Health Survey 2010. NSO and ICF Macro, Zomba, Malawi, and Calverton, Maryland, USA; 2011.
• [3]The Partnership for Maternal Newborn & Child Health: A Global Review of the Key Interventions Related to Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (RMNCH). PMNCH, Geneva, Switzerland; 2011.
• [4]WHO, UNICEF: Countdown to 2015, Maternal, Newborn and Child Survival: Building a Brighter Future for Women and Children, The 2012 Report. 2012.
• [5]Colbourn T, Nambiar B, Bondo A, Makwenda C, Tsetekani E, Makonda-Ridley A, et al.: Effects of quality improvement in health facilities and community mobilisation through women’s groups on maternal, neonatal and perinatal mortality in three districts of Malawi: MaiKhanda, a cluster randomised controlled effectiveness trial. Int Health 2013, 5:180-95.
• [6]Batura N, Pulkki-Brannstrom A-M, Agrawal P, Bagra A, Haghparast-Bidgoli H, Bozzani F, et al.: Collecting and analysing cost data for complex public health trials: reflections on practice. Global Health Action 2014, 7:23257.
• [7]Lewycka S, Mwansambo C, Rosato M, Kazembe P, Phiri T, Mganga A, et al.: Effect of women’s groups and volunteer peer counsellors on rates of mortality, morbidity and health behaviours in mothers and children in rural Malawi (MaiMwana): a factorial, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013, 381:1721-35.
• [8]Fottrell E, Azad K, Kuddus A, Younes L, Shaha S, Nahar T, et al.: The effect of increased coverage of participatory women’s groups on neonatal mortality in Bangladesh: A cluster randomized trial. JAMA Pediatr 2013, 167:816-25.
• [9]Prost A, Colbourn T, Seward N, Azad K, Coomarasamy A, Copas A, et al.: Women’s groups practising participatory learning and action to improve maternal and newborn health in resource-limited settings: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2013, 381:1736-46.
• [10]Drummond MF, Sculpher M, O’Brien B, Torrance GW: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2005.
• [11]Baio G: Bayesian Methods in Health Economics. Chapman and Hall/CRC Biostatistics series, Boca Raton, FL, USA; 2012.
• [12]Sendi PP, Briggs AH: Affordability and cost-effectiveness: decision-making on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ 2001, 10:675-80.
• [13]Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al.: Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Cost Effect Resource Allocation 2013, 11:6. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]World Bank: World DataBank. World Development Indicators, Malawi (available at: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/reports/chart.aspx (accessed 22/07/2014).
• [15]Colbourn T, Nambiar B, Costello A: MaiKhanda - Final evaluation report. The impact of quality improvement at health facilities and community mobilisation by women’s groups on birth outcomes: an effectiveness study in three districts of Malawi. Available at http://www.health.org.uk/publications/maikhanda/ (accessed 29/10/2013). pp. 1–364. London: The Health Foundation; 2013:1–364.
• [16]O’Rourke K, Howard-Grabman L, Seoane G: Impact of community organization of women on perinatal outcomes in rural Bolivia. Rev Panam Salud Publica 1998, 3:9-14.
• [17]Manandhar DS, Osrin D, Shrestha BP, Mesko N, Morrison J, Tumbahangphe KM, et al.: Effect of a participatory intervention with women’s groups on birth outcomes in Nepal: cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004, 364:970-9.
• [18]Lewycka S, Mwansambo C, Kazembe P, Phiri T, Mganga A, Rosato M, et al.: A cluster randomised controlled trial of the community effectiveness of two interventions in rural Malawi to improve health care and to reduce maternal, newborn and infant mortality. Trials 2010, 11:88. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Rosato M, Mwansambo C, Lewycka S, Kazembe P, Phiri T, Malamba F, et al.: MaiMwana women’s groups: a community mobilisation intervention to improve mother and child health and reduce mortality in rural Malawi. Malawi Med J 2010, 22:112-9.
• [20]Franco LM, Marquez L: Effectiveness of collaborative improvement: evidence from 27 applications in 12 less-developed and middle-income countries. BMJ Qual Saf Healthcare 2011, 20:658-65.
• [21]Langley GJ, Moen R, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP: The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance. 2nd edition. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA, USA; 2009.
• [22]Kongnyuy EJ, Mlava G, van den Broek N: Facility-based maternal death review in three districts in the central region of Malawi an analysis of causes and characteristics of maternal deaths. Womens Health Issues 2009, 19:14-20.
• [23]Murray CJL, Ezzati M, Flaxman AD, Lim S, Lozano R, Michaud C, et al.: GBD 2010: design, definitions, and metrics. Lancet 2012, 380:2063-6.
• [24]World Health Organisation: Burden of Disease Reference Standard Life Table (bodreferencestandardlifetable.xls). Available at http://www.who.int/healthinfo/bodreferencestandardlifetable.xls (accessed 22/07/2014). Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2013.
• [25]Polinder S, Haagsma JA, Stein C, Havelaar AH: Systematic review of general burden of disease studies using disability-adjusted life years. Popul Health Metrics 2012, 10:21. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Salomon JA, Wang H, Freeman MK, Vos T, Flaxman AD, Lopez AD, et al.: Healthy life expectancy for 187 countries, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012, 380:2144-62.
• [27]Global Burden of Disease 2010 Healthy Years Lost vs Life Expectancy Data Visualisation http://www.healthmetricsandevaluation.org/gbd/visualizations/gbd-2010-healthy-years-lost-vs-life-expectancy- data visualisation no longer available, but was (accessed 18/03/2014)
• [28]Simon J, Petrou S, Gray A: The valuation of prenatal life in economic evaluations of perinatal interventions. Health Econ 2009, 18:487-94.
• [29]Plummer M: JAGS: Just Another Gibbs Sampler. http://mcmc-jags.sourceforge.net/ (accessed 18/03/2014). 2010.
• [30]The R Foundation for Statistical Computing: R version 3.0.2 (2013-09-25) -- “Frisbee Sailing”. Copyright (C) 2013 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Platform: x86_64-apple-darwin10.8.0 (64-bit). 2013.
• [31]Baio G: BCEA: A package to run Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in R. https://sites.google.com/a/statistica.it/gianluca/bcea (accessed 17/03/2014). 2012.
• [32]Briggs AH, Claxton K, Sculpher M: Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2007.
• [33]World Health Organisation: Making Choices in Health: WHO Guide to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. World Health Organisation, Geneva; 2003.
• [34]Postma MJ, Parouty M, Westra TA: Accumulating evidence for the case of differential discounting. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2013, 6:1-3.
• [35]Nord E: Discounting future health benefits: the poverty of consistency arguments. Health Econ 2011, 20:16-26.
• [36]Claxton K, Paulden M, Gravelle H, Brouwer W, Culyer AJ: Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health-care technologies. Health Econ. 2011, 20:2-15.
• [37]Claxton KP, Revill P, Sculpher M, Wilkinson T, Cairns J, Briggs A: The Gates Reference Case for Economic Evaluation. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA; 2014.
• [38]Mwase T: Reproductive Health (RH) Financing and Expenditure Lanscape in Malawi using 2009–2012 National Health Accounts. Powerpoint Presentation to 11th MamaYe Reproductive Health Seminar, Kamuzu College of Nursing, Lilongwe, Malawi, 30th May 2014. Abt Associates Inc.; SSDI systms project; USAID, Lilongwe, Malawi; 2014.
• [39]Government of Malawi Ministry of Health: Health Sector Strategic Plan 2011–2016. Moving towards equity and quality. Ministry of Health, Lilongwe; 2011.
• [40]Bowie C, Mwase T: Assessing the use of an essential health package in a sector wide approach in Malawi. Health Res Policy Syst 2011, 9:4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [41]Adam T, Lim SS, Mehta S, Bhutta ZA, Fogstad H, Mathai M, et al.: Achieving the millennium development goals for health. Cost effectiveness analysis of strategies for maternal and neonatal health in developing countries. BMJ 2005, 331:1107-12.
• [42]Zere E, Walker O, Kirigia J, Zawaira F, Magombo F, Kataika E: Health financing in Malawi: Evidence from National Health Accounts. BMC Int Health Hum Rights 2010, 10:27. BioMed Central Full Text
• [43]Ministry of Health [Malawi], Ministry of Finance [Malawi]: Key findings from Round 2 of Resource Mapping. Presentation to Health Financing Summit on 2nd July 2013. Government of the Republic of Malawi, Lilongwe, Malawi; 2013.
• [44]Shillcutt SD, Walker DG, Goodman CA, Mills AJ: Cost effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries. a review of the debates surrounding decision rules. Pharmacoeconomics 2009, 27:903-17.
• [45]Gomes M, Grieve R, Nixon R, Edmunds WJ: Statistical methods for cost-effectiveness analyses that use data from cluster randomized trials: a systematic review and checklist for critical appraisal. Med Decis Mak 2012, 32:209-20.
• [46]Gomes M, Ng ES-W, Grieve R, Nixon R, Carpenter J, Thompson SG: Developing appropriate methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of cluster randomized trials. Med Decis Mak 2012, 32:350-61.
• [47]Mueller DH, Lungu D, Acharya A, Palmer N: 6: Constraints to implementing the Essential Health Package in Malawi. PLoS ONE 2011, 6:6-e20741.
• [48]Colbourn T: Investigating the benefits of women’s groups in Malawi: adapted quality of life measurement, best-worst scaling choice-experiments and contingent valuation [Ph.D. thesis]. UCL, Centre for International Health and Development, London, UK; 2012.
• [49]Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T: Complex interventions: how “out of control” can a randomised controlled trial be? BMJ 2004, 328:1561-1563.
• [50]Hutubessy R, Chisholm D, Tan-Torres Edejaer T, Who C: Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector. Cost Effect Resource Allocation 2003, 1:8. BioMed Central Full Text
• [51]EquiNaM: EquiNaM: building evidence to support equitable improvement in newborn and maternal health (ESRC-DFID funded project: http://equinam.global-health-inequalities.info/ accessed 12th April 2014). 2011–2014.
• [52]Houweling TAJ, Tripathy P, Nair N, Rath S, Rath S, Gope R, et al.: The equity impact of participatory women’s groups to reduce neonatal mortality in India: secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised trial. Int J Epidemiol 2013, 42:520-32.
• [53]Van Lerberghe W, De Brouwere V: Of blind alleys and things that have worked: history’s lessons on reducing maternal mortality. In Safe motherhood strategies: a review of the evidence. Edited by Brouwere V, Lerberghe W. ITG Press, Antwerp; 2001. Studies in Health Services Organisation and Policy, 17:7–33
• [54]Oestergaard MZ, Inoue M, Yoshida S, Mahanani WR, Gore FM, Cousens S, et al.: Neonatal Mortality Levels for 193 Countries in 2009 with Trends since 1990: A Systematic Analysis of Progress, Projections, and Priorities. PLoS Med 2011, 8:e1001080.
• [55]Zimba E, Kinney M, Kachale F, Waltensperger KZ, Blencowe H, Colbourn T, et al.: Newborn survival in Malawi: a decade of change and future implications. Health Policy Plan 2012, 27:iii88-103.
• [56]Cousens S, Blencowe H, Stanton C, Chou D, Ahmed S, Steinhardt L, et al.: National, regional, and worldwide estimates of stillbirth rates in 2009 with trends since 1995: a systematic analysis. Lancet 2011, 377:1319-30.