The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2022
A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Cleft Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: What is Needed?
Систематический обзорСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chung Karen Y, Ho George, Erman Aysegul, Bielecki Joanna M, Forrest Christopher R, Sander Beate
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to conduct a systematic review that summarizes the cost-effectiveness of cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) based on existing literature.
DESIGN: We searched eleven electronic databases for articles from January 1, 2000 to December 29, 2020. This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020148402). Two reviewers independently conducted primary and secondary screening, and data extraction.
SETTING: All CL/P cost-effectiveness analyses in LMIC settings.
PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: In total, 2883 citations were screened. Eleven articles encompassing 1,001,675 patients from 86 LMICs were included.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used cost-effectiveness thresholds of 1% to 51% of a country's gross domestic product per capita (GDP/capita), a conservative threshold recommended for LMICs. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist.
RESULTS: Primary CL/P repair was cost-effective at the threshold of 51% of a country's GDP/capita across all studies. However, only 1 study met at least 70% of the JBI criteria. There is a need for context-specific cost and health outcome data for primary CL/P repair, complications, and existing multidisciplinary management in LMICs.
CONCLUSIONS: Existing economic evaluations suggest primary CL/P repair is cost-effective, however context-specific local data will make future cost-effectiveness analyses more relevant to local decision-makers and lead to better-informed resource allocation decisions in LMICs.
DESIGN: We searched eleven electronic databases for articles from January 1, 2000 to December 29, 2020. This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020148402). Two reviewers independently conducted primary and secondary screening, and data extraction.
SETTING: All CL/P cost-effectiveness analyses in LMIC settings.
PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: In total, 2883 citations were screened. Eleven articles encompassing 1,001,675 patients from 86 LMICs were included.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used cost-effectiveness thresholds of 1% to 51% of a country's gross domestic product per capita (GDP/capita), a conservative threshold recommended for LMICs. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist.
RESULTS: Primary CL/P repair was cost-effective at the threshold of 51% of a country's GDP/capita across all studies. However, only 1 study met at least 70% of the JBI criteria. There is a need for context-specific cost and health outcome data for primary CL/P repair, complications, and existing multidisciplinary management in LMICs.
CONCLUSIONS: Existing economic evaluations suggest primary CL/P repair is cost-effective, however context-specific local data will make future cost-effectiveness analyses more relevant to local decision-makers and lead to better-informed resource allocation decisions in LMICs.