Cost effectiveness

About: Cost effectiveness is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 69775 publications have been published within this topic receiving 1531477 citations.

Fighting poverty with microcredit : experience in Bangladesh

Abstract: Providing microcredit to the poor has become an important antipoverty scheme in many countries. Microcredit helps the poor become self-employed and thus generates income and reduces poverty. In Bangladesh, these programs reach about 5 million poor households. This books attempts to find out whether these programs cost-effective, drawing on the experiences of the well-known microcredit programs of Bangladesh's Grameen Bank, the Rural Development-12 projects, and the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee. It examines the cost-effectiveness of microcredit programs vis-�vis other antipoverty programs, such as Food-for-Work. Moreover, the book uses extensive household survey data to address how the gender of participants affects the impact of microcredit programs.

Understanding controlled trials: Why are randomised controlled trials important?

Abstract: Randomised controlled trials are the most rigorous way of determining whether a cause-effect relation exists between treatment and outcome and for assessing the cost effectiveness of a treatment. They have several important features: Other study designs, including non-randomised controlled …

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Objective To assess the long term effects of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain. Design Systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Electronic searches of Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases up to February 2014, supplemented by hand searching of reference lists and forward citation tracking of included trials. Study selection criteria Trials published in full; participants with low back pain for more than three months; multidisciplinary rehabilitation involved a physical component and one or both of a psychological component or a social or work targeted component; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was delivered by healthcare professionals from at least two different professional backgrounds; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was compared with a non- multidisciplinary intervention. Results Forty one trials included a total of 6858 participants with a mean duration of pain of more than one year who often had failed previous treatment. Sixteen trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.37; equivalent to 0.5 points in a 10 point pain scale) and disability (0.23, 0.06 to 0.40; equivalent to 1.5 points in a 24 point Roland-Morris index) compared with usual care. Nineteen trials provided low quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.51, −0.01 to 1.04) and disability (0.68, 0.16 to 1.19) compared with physical treatments, but significant statistical heterogeneity across trials was present. Eight trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation improves the odds of being at work one year after intervention (odds ratio 1.87, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.53) compared with physical treatments. Seven trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation does not improve the odds of being at work (odds ratio 1.04, 0.73 to 1.47) compared with usual care. Two trials that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation with surgery found little difference in outcomes and an increased risk of adverse events with surgery. Conclusions Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation interventions were more effective than usual care (moderate quality evidence) and physical treatments (low quality evidence) in decreasing pain and disability in people with chronic low back pain. For work outcomes, multidisciplinary rehabilitation seems to be more effective than physical treatment but not more effective than usual care.

Community-Based Interventions for Improving Perinatal and Neonatal Health Outcomes in Developing Countries: A Review of the Evidence

Abstract: Background. Infant and under-5 childhood mortality rates in developing countries have declined significantly in the past 2 to 3 decades. However, 2 critical indicators, maternal and newborn mortality, have hardly changed. World leaders at the United Nations Millennium Summit in September 2000 agreed on a critical goal to reduce deaths of children Objective. This review of community-based antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal intervention trials in developing countries aimed to identify (1) key behaviors and interventions for which the weight of evidence is sufficient to recommend their inclusion in community-based neonatal care programs and (2) key gaps in knowledge and priority areas for future research and program learning. Methods. Available published and unpublished data on the impact of community-based strategies and interventions on perinatal and neonatal health status outcomes were reviewed. Evidence was summarized systematically and categorized into 4 levels of evidence based on study size, location, design, and reported impact, particularly on perinatal or neonatal mortality. The evidence was placed in the context of biological plausibility of the intervention; evidence from relevant developed-country studies; health care program experience in implementation; and recommendations from the World Health Organization and other leading agencies. Results. A paucity of community-based data was found from developing-country studies on health status impact for many interventions currently being considered for inclusion in neonatal health programs. However, review of the evidence and consideration of the broader context of knowledge, experience, and recommendations regarding these interventions enabled us to categorize them according to the strength of the evidence base and confidence regarding their inclusion now in programs. This article identifies a package of priority interventions to include in programs and formulates research priorities for advancing the state of the art in neonatal health care. Conclusions. This review emphasizes some new findings while recommending an integrated approach to safe motherhood and newborn health. The results of this study provide a foundation for policies and programs related to maternal and newborn health and emphasizes the importance of health systems research and evaluation of interventions. The review offers compelling support for using research to identify the most effective measures to save newborn lives. It also may facilitate dialogue with policy makers about the importance of investing in neonatal health.