Cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and critical analysis of recent evidence.

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH BMJ Global Health Pub Date : 2024-10-03 DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2024-016439
Martilord Ifeanyichi, Jose Luis Mosso Lara, Phyllis Tenkorang, Meskerem Aleka Kebede, Maeve Bognini, Alshaheed Nasraldin Abdelhabeeb, Uchenna Amaechina, Faiza Ambreen, Shreeja Sarabu, Taiwo Oladimeji, Ana Carolina Toguchi, Rachel Hargest, Rocco Friebel
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and critical analysis of recent evidence.","authors":"Martilord Ifeanyichi, Jose Luis Mosso Lara, Phyllis Tenkorang, Meskerem Aleka Kebede, Maeve Bognini, Alshaheed Nasraldin Abdelhabeeb, Uchenna Amaechina, Faiza Ambreen, Shreeja Sarabu, Taiwo Oladimeji, Ana Carolina Toguchi, Rachel Hargest, Rocco Friebel","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2024-016439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cost-effectiveness evidence is a critical tool to support resource allocation decisions. There is growing recognition that the development of benefit packages for surgical care should be guided by such evidence, particularly in resource-constraint settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of evidence (Medline, Embase, Global Health, EconLit and grey literature) on the cost-effectiveness of surgery across low-income and middle-income countries published between January 2013 and January 2023. We included studies with minor and major therapeutic surgeries and minimally invasive intraluminal and endovascular interventions. We computed and compared the average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) for different surgical interventions to the respective national gross domestic product per capita to determine cost-effectiveness and to common traditional public health interventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 87 unique studies out of 20 070 articles screened. Studies spanned 23 countries, with China (n=20), Thailand (n=12), Brazil (n=8) and Iran (n=8) accounting for about 55% of the evidence. Overall, the median ACERs across procedure groups ranged from I$17/disability-adjusted life year (DALY) for laparotomies to I$170 186/DALY for bariatric surgeries. Most of the ACER estimates were classified as cost-effective (89%) or very cost-effective (76%). Low-complexity surgical interventions compared favourably to common public health interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings reinforce the growing body of evidence that investments in surgery are economically smart. There remains however paucity of high-quality evidence that would allow decision-makers to assess the comparative cost-effectiveness of surgery and to determine best buys across a wide range of specialties and interventions. A concerted effort is needed to advance the generation and utilisation of economic evidence in the drive towards scale-up of surgical care across low-income and middle-income countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-016439","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cost-effectiveness evidence is a critical tool to support resource allocation decisions. There is growing recognition that the development of benefit packages for surgical care should be guided by such evidence, particularly in resource-constraint settings.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of evidence (Medline, Embase, Global Health, EconLit and grey literature) on the cost-effectiveness of surgery across low-income and middle-income countries published between January 2013 and January 2023. We included studies with minor and major therapeutic surgeries and minimally invasive intraluminal and endovascular interventions. We computed and compared the average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) for different surgical interventions to the respective national gross domestic product per capita to determine cost-effectiveness and to common traditional public health interventions.

Results: We identified 87 unique studies out of 20 070 articles screened. Studies spanned 23 countries, with China (n=20), Thailand (n=12), Brazil (n=8) and Iran (n=8) accounting for about 55% of the evidence. Overall, the median ACERs across procedure groups ranged from I$17/disability-adjusted life year (DALY) for laparotomies to I$170 186/DALY for bariatric surgeries. Most of the ACER estimates were classified as cost-effective (89%) or very cost-effective (76%). Low-complexity surgical interventions compared favourably to common public health interventions.

Conclusion: These findings reinforce the growing body of evidence that investments in surgery are economically smart. There remains however paucity of high-quality evidence that would allow decision-makers to assess the comparative cost-effectiveness of surgery and to determine best buys across a wide range of specialties and interventions. A concerted effort is needed to advance the generation and utilisation of economic evidence in the drive towards scale-up of surgical care across low-income and middle-income countries.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
低收入和中等收入国家外科干预措施的成本效益:对近期证据的系统回顾和批判性分析。
背景:成本效益证据是支持资源分配决策的重要工具:成本效益证据是支持资源分配决策的重要工具。越来越多的人认识到,外科护理福利包的制定应该以此类证据为指导,尤其是在资源紧张的情况下:我们对 2013 年 1 月至 2023 年 1 月期间发表的有关中低收入国家手术成本效益的证据(Medline、Embase、Global Health、EconLit 和灰色文献)进行了系统性回顾。我们纳入了小手术和大手术治疗以及微创腔内和血管内介入治疗的研究。我们计算并比较了不同手术干预措施的平均成本效益比(ACER)与各自国家的人均国内生产总值,以确定成本效益,并与常见的传统公共卫生干预措施进行比较:在筛选的 20 070 篇文章中,我们确定了 87 项独特的研究。研究涉及 23 个国家,其中中国(20 篇)、泰国(12 篇)、巴西(8 篇)和伊朗(8 篇)的研究约占 55%。总体而言,各组手术的 ACER 中位数从开腹手术的 17 美元/残疾调整生命年到减肥手术的 170 186 美元/残疾调整生命年不等。大多数 ACER 估计值被归类为具有成本效益(89%)或非常具有成本效益(76%)。与常见的公共卫生干预措施相比,低复杂性外科干预措施更为有利:这些研究结果加强了越来越多的证据,证明外科手术投资具有经济效益。然而,仍缺乏高质量的证据,使决策者能够评估外科手术的比较成本效益,并确定各种专科和干预措施的最佳购买方案。在低收入和中等收入国家推广外科治疗的过程中,需要共同努力推动经济证据的生成和利用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Global Health
BMJ Global Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
429
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.
期刊最新文献
The impact of a multi-faceted intervention on non-prescription dispensing of antibiotics by urban community pharmacies in Indonesia: a mixed methods evaluation. Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH): the evolution of a global health and development sector. Cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and critical analysis of recent evidence. Learning from the Montreal Protocol to improve the global governance of antimicrobial resistance. Leveraging investments, promoting transparency and mobilising communities: a qualitative analysis of news articles about how the Ebola outbreak informed COVID-19 response in five African countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1