Cost estimation alongside a multi-regional, multi-country randomized trial of antenatal ultrasound in five low-and-middle-income countries

Background: Improving maternal health has been a primary goal of international health agencies for many years, with the aim of reducing maternal and child deaths and improving access to antenatal care (ANC) services, particularly in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). Health interventions with these aims have received more attention from a clinical effectiveness perspective than for cost impact and economic efficiency.Methods: We collected data on resource use and costs as part of a large, multi-country study assessing the use of routine antenatal screening ultrasound (US) with the aim of considering the implications for economic efficiency. We assessed typical antenatal outpatient and hospital-based (facility) care for pregnant women, in general, with selective complication-related data collection in women participating in a large maternal health registry and clinical trial in five LMICs. We estimated average costs from a facility/health system perspective for outpatient and inpatient services. We converted all country-level currency cost estimates to 2015 United States dollars (USD). We compared average costs across countries for ANC visits, deliveries, higher-risk pregnancies, and complications, and conducted sensitivity analyses.Results: Our study included sites in five countries representing different regions. Overall, the relative cost of individual ANC and delivery-related healthcare use was consistent among countries, generally corresponding to country-specific income levels. ANC outpatient visit cost estimates per patient among countries ranged from 15 to 30 USD, based on average counts for visits with and without US. Estimates for antenatal screening US visits were more costly than non-US visits. Costs associated with higher-risk pregnancies were influenced by rates of hospital delivery by cesarean section (mean per person delivery cost estimate range: 25-65 USD).Conclusions: Despite substantial differences among countries in infrastructures and health system capacity, there were similarities in resource allocation, delivery location, and country-level challenges. Overall, there was no clear suggestion that adding antenatal screening US would result in either major cost savings or major cost increases. However, antenatal screening US would have higher training and maintenance costs. Given the lack of clinical effectiveness evidence and greater resource constraints of LMICs, it is unlikely that introducing antenatal screening US would be economically efficient in these settings--on the demand side (i.e., patients) or supply side (i.e., healthcare providers).Trial registration: Trial number: NCT01990625 (First posted: November 21, 2013 on https://clinicaltrials.gov )

Cost estimation alongside a multi-regional, multi-country randomized trial of antenatal ultrasound in five low-and-middle-income countries

Improving maternal health has been a primary goal of international health agencies for many years, with the aim of reducing maternal and child deaths and improving access to antenatal care (ANC) services, particularly in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). Health interventions with these aims have received more attention from a clinical effectiveness perspective than for cost impact and economic efficiency

A case-control study of risk factors for fetal and early neonatal deaths in a tertiary hospital in Kenya

A case-control study of risk factors for fetal and early neonatal deaths in a tertiary hospital in Kenya.. BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 14(1): 389 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-014-0389-8 Access to the published version may require subscription. N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper. Permanent link to this version: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-98491 R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E Open Access A case-control study of risk factors for fetal and early neonatal deaths in a tertiary hospital in Kenya Abstract Background: It is important to understand the risk factors for fetal and neonatal mortality which is a major contributor to high under five deaths globally. Fetal and neonatal mortality is a sensitive indicator of maternal health in society. This study aimed to examine the risk factors for fetal and early neonatal mortality at the Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital in Kenya. Methods: This was a case-control study. Cases were fetal and early neonatal deaths (n = 200). The controls were infants born alive immediately preceding and following the cases (n = 400). Bivariate comparisons and multiple logistic regression analyses were undertaken. Results: The odds of having 0-1 antenatal visits relative to 2-3 visits were higher for cases than controls (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 4.5; 95% CI: 1.2-16.7; p = 0.03)). There were lower odds among cases of having a doctor rather than a midwife as a birth attendant (AOR = 0.2; 95% CI: 0.1-0.6; p < 0.01). The odds of mothers having Premature Rupture of Membranes (AOR = 4.1; 95% CI: 1.4-12.1; p = 0.01), haemorrhage (AOR = 4.8; 95% CI: 1.1-21.9; p = 0.04) and dystocia (AOR = 3.6; 95% CI: 1.2-10.9; p = 0.02) were higher for the cases compared with the controls. The odds of gestational age less than 37 weeks (AOR = 7.0; 95% CI 2.4-20.4) and above 42 weeks (AOR = 16.2; 95% CI 2.8-92.3) compared to 37-42 weeks, were higher for cases relative to controls (p < 0.01). Cases had higher odds of being born with congenital malformations (AOR = 6.3; 95% CI: 1.2-31.6; p = 0.04) and with Apgar scores of below six at five minutes (AOR = 26.4; 95% CI: 6.1-113.8; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Interventions that focus on educating mothers on antenatal attendance, screening, monitoring and management of maternal conditions during the antenatal period should be strengthened. Doctor attendance at each birth and for emergency admissions is important to ensure early neonatal survival and avert potential risk factors for mortality