与乌干达年轻妇女的护理标准相比,使用计划生育福利卡增加避孕药具覆盖率的成本效益。

Elly Nuwamanya, Joseph B Babigumira, Mikael Svensson
{"title":"与乌干达年轻妇女的护理标准相比,使用计划生育福利卡增加避孕药具覆盖率的成本效益。","authors":"Elly Nuwamanya,&nbsp;Joseph B Babigumira,&nbsp;Mikael Svensson","doi":"10.1186/s40834-022-00206-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Uganda has a high population growth rate of 3%, partly due to limited access to and low usage of contraception. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the family planning benefits cards (FPBC) program compared to standard of care (SOC). The FPBC program was initiated to increase access to modern contraception among young women in slums in Kampala, Uganda.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed a decision-analytic model (decision tree) and parameterized it using primary intervention data together with previously published data. In the base case, a sexually active woman from an urban slum, aged 18 to 30 years, was modelled over a one-year time horizon from both the modified societal and provider perspectives. The main model outcomes included the probability of unintended conception, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of cost per unwanted pregnancy averted. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the modelling results. All costs were reported in 2022 US dollars, and analyses were conducted in Microsoft Excel.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base case analysis, the FPBC was superior to the SOC in outcomes. The probability of conception was lower in the FPBC than in the SOC (0.20 vs. 0.44). The average societal and provider costs were higher in the FPBC than in the SOC, i.e., $195 vs. $164 and $193 vs. $163, respectively. The ICER comparing the FPBC to the SOC was $125 per percentage reduction in the probability of unwanted conception from the societal perspective and $121 from the provider perspective. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Given Uganda's GDP per capita of $1046 in 2022, the FPBC is highly cost-effective compared to the SOC in reducing unintended pregnancies among young women in low-income settings. It can even get cheaper in the long run due to the low marginal costs of deploying additional FPBCs.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>MUREC1/7 No. 10/05-17. Registered on July 19, 2017.</p>","PeriodicalId":10637,"journal":{"name":"Contraception and Reproductive Medicine","volume":"8 1","pages":"21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9926799/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-effectiveness of increased contraceptive coverage using family planning benefits cards compared with the standard of care for young women in Uganda.\",\"authors\":\"Elly Nuwamanya,&nbsp;Joseph B Babigumira,&nbsp;Mikael Svensson\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40834-022-00206-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Uganda has a high population growth rate of 3%, partly due to limited access to and low usage of contraception. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the family planning benefits cards (FPBC) program compared to standard of care (SOC). The FPBC program was initiated to increase access to modern contraception among young women in slums in Kampala, Uganda.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed a decision-analytic model (decision tree) and parameterized it using primary intervention data together with previously published data. In the base case, a sexually active woman from an urban slum, aged 18 to 30 years, was modelled over a one-year time horizon from both the modified societal and provider perspectives. The main model outcomes included the probability of unintended conception, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of cost per unwanted pregnancy averted. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the modelling results. All costs were reported in 2022 US dollars, and analyses were conducted in Microsoft Excel.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base case analysis, the FPBC was superior to the SOC in outcomes. The probability of conception was lower in the FPBC than in the SOC (0.20 vs. 0.44). The average societal and provider costs were higher in the FPBC than in the SOC, i.e., $195 vs. $164 and $193 vs. $163, respectively. The ICER comparing the FPBC to the SOC was $125 per percentage reduction in the probability of unwanted conception from the societal perspective and $121 from the provider perspective. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Given Uganda's GDP per capita of $1046 in 2022, the FPBC is highly cost-effective compared to the SOC in reducing unintended pregnancies among young women in low-income settings. It can even get cheaper in the long run due to the low marginal costs of deploying additional FPBCs.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>MUREC1/7 No. 10/05-17. Registered on July 19, 2017.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10637,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contraception and Reproductive Medicine\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9926799/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contraception and Reproductive Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40834-022-00206-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception and Reproductive Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40834-022-00206-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:乌干达的人口增长率高达3%,部分原因是避孕措施的获取有限和使用率低。本研究评估了计划生育福利卡(FPBC)项目与护理标准(SOC)项目的成本效益。FPBC计划的启动是为了增加乌干达坎帕拉贫民窟年轻妇女获得现代避孕措施的机会。方法:我们建立了一个决策分析模型(决策树),并使用主要干预数据和先前发表的数据对其进行参数化。在基本案例中,从改进的社会和提供者的角度对来自城市贫民窟的一名年龄在18至30岁之间的性活跃妇女进行了为期一年的建模。主要模型结果包括意外怀孕的概率、成本和增量成本-效果比(ICER),即每次避免意外怀孕的成本。进行确定性和概率敏感性分析以评估建模结果的稳健性。所有成本均以2022美元计算,并在Microsoft Excel中进行分析。结果:在基本病例分析中,FPBC的结果优于SOC。FPBC的受孕概率低于SOC (0.20 vs. 0.44)。FPBC的平均社会成本和供应商成本高于SOC,分别为195美元和164美元,193美元和163美元。从社会角度来看,将FPBC与SOC进行比较的ICER是每百分比减少意外受孕概率125美元,从提供者角度来看是121美元。结果对敏感性分析具有稳健性。结论:考虑到乌干达2022年的人均GDP为1046美元,与SOC相比,FPBC在减少低收入地区年轻女性意外怀孕方面具有很高的成本效益。从长远来看,由于部署额外的fpbc的边际成本较低,它甚至可以变得更便宜。试验报名:MUREC1/7 No. 10/05-17。2017年7月19日注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Cost-effectiveness of increased contraceptive coverage using family planning benefits cards compared with the standard of care for young women in Uganda.

Background: Uganda has a high population growth rate of 3%, partly due to limited access to and low usage of contraception. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the family planning benefits cards (FPBC) program compared to standard of care (SOC). The FPBC program was initiated to increase access to modern contraception among young women in slums in Kampala, Uganda.

Methods: We developed a decision-analytic model (decision tree) and parameterized it using primary intervention data together with previously published data. In the base case, a sexually active woman from an urban slum, aged 18 to 30 years, was modelled over a one-year time horizon from both the modified societal and provider perspectives. The main model outcomes included the probability of unintended conception, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of cost per unwanted pregnancy averted. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the modelling results. All costs were reported in 2022 US dollars, and analyses were conducted in Microsoft Excel.

Results: In the base case analysis, the FPBC was superior to the SOC in outcomes. The probability of conception was lower in the FPBC than in the SOC (0.20 vs. 0.44). The average societal and provider costs were higher in the FPBC than in the SOC, i.e., $195 vs. $164 and $193 vs. $163, respectively. The ICER comparing the FPBC to the SOC was $125 per percentage reduction in the probability of unwanted conception from the societal perspective and $121 from the provider perspective. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion: Given Uganda's GDP per capita of $1046 in 2022, the FPBC is highly cost-effective compared to the SOC in reducing unintended pregnancies among young women in low-income settings. It can even get cheaper in the long run due to the low marginal costs of deploying additional FPBCs.

Trial registration: MUREC1/7 No. 10/05-17. Registered on July 19, 2017.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Correction: Unintended pregnancy and contraceptive use among women in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis Male characteristics and contraception in four districts of the central region, Ghana. Postpartum family planning uptake in Uganda: findings from the lot quality assurance sampling survey. Assessing the sustainability of two independent voucher-based family planning programs in Pakistan: a 24-months post-intervention evaluation. Emergency contraceptive use of Metronidazole among University female students in Dodoma region of Tanzania: a descriptive cross-sectional study.
×
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