In the original version of this article, Fig. 3 was published in an incorrect format. The correct figure is published with this correction

Cunnama, Lucy

DeCormier Plosky, Willyanne

Garcia Baena, Inés

Gomez, Gabriela B

Herzel, Ben

Hill, Jeremy

Kairu, Angela

Levin, Carol

Okello, Dickson

Siapka, Mariana

Sinanovic, Edina

Sweeney, Sedona

Vassall, Anna

English

BACKGROUND: There is a need for easily accessible tuberculosis unit cost data, as well as an understanding of the variability of methods used and reporting standards of that data. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to descriptively review papers reporting tuberculosis unit costs from a healthcare provider perspective looking at methodological variation; to assess quality using a study quality rating system and machine learning to investigate the indicators of reporting quality; and to identify the data gaps to inform standardised tuberculosis unit cost collection and consistent principles for reporting going forward. METHODS: We searched grey and published literature in five sources and eight databases, respectively, using search terms linked to cost, tuberculosis and tuberculosis health services including tuberculosis treatment and prevention. For inclusion, the papers needed to contain empirical unit cost estimates for tuberculosis interventions from low- and middle-income countries, with reference years between 1990 and 2018. A total of 21,691 papers were found and screened in a phased manner. Data were extracted from the eligible papers into a detailed Microsoft Excel tool, extensively cleaned and analysed with R software (R Project, Vienna, Austria) using the user interface of RStudio. A study quality rating was applied to the reviewed papers based on the inclusion or omission of a selection of variables and their relative importance. Following this, machine learning using a recursive partitioning method was utilised to construct a classification tree to assess the reporting quality. RESULTS: This systematic review included 103 provider perspective papers with 627 unit costs (costs not presented here) for tuberculosis interventions among a total of 140 variables. The interventions covered were active, passive and intensified case finding; tuberculosis treatment; above-service costs; and tuberculosis prevention. Passive case finding is the detection of tuberculosis cases where individuals self-identify at health facilities; active case finding is detection of cases of those not in health facilities, such as through outreach; and intensified case finding is detection of cases in high-risk populations. There was heterogeneity in some of the reported methods used such cost allocation, amortisation and the use of top-down, bottom-up or mixed approaches to the costing. Uncertainty checking through sensitivity analysis was only reported on by half of the papers (54%), while purposive and convenience sampling was reported by 72% of papers. Machine learning indicated that reporting on 'Intervention' (in particular), 'Urbanicity' and 'Site Sampling', were the most likely indicators of quality of reporting. The largest data gap identified was for tuberculosis vaccination cost data, the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in particular. There is a gap in available unit costs for 12 of 30 high tuberculosis burden countries, as well as for the interventions of above-service costs, tuberculosis prevention, and active and intensified case finding. CONCLUSION: Variability in the methods and reporting used makes comparison difficult and makes it hard for decision makers to know which unit costs they can trust. The study quality rating system used in this review as well as the classification tree enable focus on specific reporting aspects that should improve variability and increase confidence in unit costs. Researchers should endeavour to be explicit and transparent in how they cost interventions following the principles as laid out in the Global Health Cost Consortium's Reference Case for Estimating the Costs of Global Health Services and Interventions, which in turn will lead to repeatability, comparability and enhanced learning from others

LSHTM Research Online

A Systematic Review of Methodological Variation in Healthcare Provider Perspective Tuberculosis Costing Papers Conducted in Low- and Middle-Income Settings, Using An Intervention-Standardised Unit Cost Typology.

Vol.:(0123456789)PharmacoEconomics (2020) 38:899–900 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00928-0CORRECTIONCorrection to: A Systematic Review of Methodological Variation in Healthcare Provider Perspective Tuberculosis Costing Papers Conducted in Low‑ and Middle‑Income Settings, Using An Intervention‑Standardised Unit Cost TypologyLucy Cunnama1  · Gabriela B. Gomez2 · Mariana Siapka2 · Ben Herzel3 · Jeremy Hill2 · Angela Kairu1 · Carol Levin4 · Dickson Okello1 · Willyanne DeCormier Plosky5 · Inés Garcia Baena6 · Sedona Sweeney2 · Anna Vassall2 · Edina Sinanovic1Published online: 27 May 2020 © The Author(s) 2020Correction to:  PharmacoEconomics (2020)  https ://doi.org/10.1007/s4027 3-020-00910 -wIn the original version of this article, Fig. 3 was published in an incorrect format. The correct figure is published with this correction.Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creat iveco mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/.The original article can be found online at https ://doi.org/10.1007/s4027 3-020-00910 -w. * Lucy Cunnama  Lucy.Cunnama@uct.ac.za1 Health Economics Unit, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Anzio Road, Cape Town, South Africa2 Department of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK3 Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA4 Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA5 Avenir Health, Glastonbury, CT, USA6 TB Monitoring and Evaluation (TME), Global TB Programme, The World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland900 L. Cunnama et al.Fig. 3  Number of unit costs for TB interventions available in low- and middle-income countries

Correction to: A Systematic Review of Methodological Variation in Healthcare Provider Perspective Tuberculosis Costing Papers Conducted in Low- and Middle-Income Settings, Using An Intervention-Standardised Unit Cost Typology.

https://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/4658325/1/Correction%20to%20A%20Systematic%20Review%20of%20Methodological%20Variation%20in%20Healthcare%20Provider%20Perspective%20Tuberculosis%20Costing%20Papers.pdf

Correction to: A Systematic Review of Methodological Variation in Healthcare Provider Perspective Tuberculosis Costing Papers Conducted in Low- and Middle-Income Settings, Using An Intervention-Standardised Unit Cost Typology.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSHTM Research Online

LSHTM Research Online