Repurposing NGO data for better research outcomes: A scoping review of the use and secondary analysis of NGO data in health policy and systems research

Background Non-government organisations (NGOs) collect and generate vast amounts of potentially rich data, most of which are not used for research purposes. Secondary analysis of NGO data (their use and analysis in a study for which they were not originally collected) presents an important but largely unrealised opportunity to provide new research insights in critical areas including the evaluation of health policy and programmes. Methods A scoping review of the published literature was performed to identify the extent to which secondary analysis of NGO data has been used in health policy and systems research (HPSR). A tiered analytic approach provided a comprehensive overview and descriptive analyses of the studies which: 1) used data produced or collected by or about NGOs; 2) performed secondary analysis of the NGO data (beyond use of an NGO report as a supporting reference); 3) used NGO-collected clinical data. Results Of the 156 studies which performed secondary analysis of NGO-produced or collected data, 64% (n=100) used NGO-produced reports (e.g. to critique NGO activities and as a contextual reference) and 8% (n=13) analysed NGO-collected clinical data.. Of the studies, 55% investigated service delivery research topics, with 48% undertaken in developing countries and 17% in both developing and developed. NGO-collected clinical data enabled HPSR within marginalised groups (e.g. migrants, people in conflict-affected areas), with some limitations such as inconsistencies and missing data. Conclusion We found evidence that NGO-collected and produced data are most commonly perceived as a source of supporting evidence for HPSR and not as primary source data. However, these data can facilitate research in under-researched marginalised groups and in contexts that are hard to reach by academics, such as conflict-affected areas. NGO–academic collaboration could help address issues of NGO data quality to facilitate their more widespread use in research. Their use could enable relevant and timely research in the areas of health policy, programme evaluation and advocacy to improve health and reduce health inequalities, especially in marginalised groups and developing countries

Unit Costs for Delivery of Antiretroviral Treatment and Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV

BACKGROUND: As antiretroviral treatment (ART) for HIV/AIDS is scaled-up globally, information on per-person costs is critical to improve efficiency in service delivery and maximize coverage and health impact. OBJECTIVE: To review studies on delivery unit costs for adult and pediatric ART provision per-patient-year, and prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) interventions per mother-infant pair screened or treated, in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: Systematic review of English, French and Spanish publications from 2001 to 2009, reporting empirical costing that accounted for at least antiretroviral (ARV) medicines, laboratory testing and personnel. Expenditures were analyzed by country income level and cost component. All costs were standardized to 2009 US dollars. RESULTS: Analyses covered 29 eligible, comprehensive costing studies. In the base case, in low-income countries (LIC), median, ART cost per patient-year was $792 (mean:$839, range: $682-$1089); for lower-middle-income countries (LMIC), the median was $932 (mean:$1246, range: $156-$3904); and for upper-middle-income countries (UMIC) the median was $1454 (mean:$2783, range: $1230-$5667). ARV drugs were largest component of overall ART cost in all settings (62%, 50% and 47% in LIC, LMIC and UMIC respectively). Out of 26 ART studies, 14 report which drug regimes were used, and only one study explicitly reported second line treatment costs. The second cost driver was laboratory cost in LIC and LMIC (14% and 19.5%) whereas it was personnel costs in UMIC (26%). Two studies specified the types of laboratory tests costed, and three studies specifically included above-facility-level personnel costs. Three studies reported detailed PMTCT costs, and two studies reported on pediatric ART. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of data on the full ART and PMTCT delivery unit costs, in particular for low-and middle-income countries. Heterogeneity in activities costed and insufficient detail regarding components included in the costing hampers standardization of unit cost measures. Evaluation of program-level unit costs would benefit from international guidance on standardized costing methods, and expenditure categories and definitions. Future work should help elucidate the sources for the large variations in delivery unit costs across settings with similar income and epidemiological characteristics