MedElevator
Войти в исследования International health · 2022
An economic evaluation of implementing a decentralized dengue screening intervention under the National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme in Tamil Nadu, South India.
СтатьяПоддержка 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.
Muniyandi Malaisamy, Karikalan Nagarajan, Ravi Karunya, Sengodan Senthilkumar, Krishnan Rajendran, Tyagi Kirti, Rajsekar Kavitha, Raju Sivadhas, Selvavinayagam T S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Lack of effective early screening is a major obstacle for reducing the fatality rate and disease burden of dengue. In light of this, the government of Tamil Nadu has adopted a decentralized dengue screening strategy at the primary healthcare (PHC) facilities using blood platelet count. Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a decentralized screening strategy for dengue at PHC facilities compared with the current strategy at the tertiary health facility (THC) level.
METHODS: Decision tree analysis followed a hypothetical cohort of 1000 suspected dengue cases entering the model. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed at a 3% discount rate for the proposed and current strategy. The outcomes are expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life years gained. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were done to check the uncertainty in the outcome.
RESULTS: The proposed strategy was found to be cost-saving and ICER was estimated to be -41 197. PSA showed that the proposed strategy had a 0.84 probability of being an economically dominant strategy.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed strategy is cost-saving, however, it is recommended to consider optimal population coverage, costs to economic human resources and collateral benefits of equipment.
METHODS: Decision tree analysis followed a hypothetical cohort of 1000 suspected dengue cases entering the model. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed at a 3% discount rate for the proposed and current strategy. The outcomes are expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life years gained. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were done to check the uncertainty in the outcome.
RESULTS: The proposed strategy was found to be cost-saving and ICER was estimated to be -41 197. PSA showed that the proposed strategy had a 0.84 probability of being an economically dominant strategy.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed strategy is cost-saving, however, it is recommended to consider optimal population coverage, costs to economic human resources and collateral benefits of equipment.