当前位置： SCI文献检索 > CONTRACEPTION期刊下所有文献 > Is contraceptive self-injection cost-effective compared to contraceptive injections from facility-based health workers? Evidence from Uganda.

Is contraceptive self-injection cost-effective compared to contraceptive injections from facility-based health workers? Evidence from Uganda.

Abstract：

OBJECTIVE:To assess the cost-effectiveness of self-injected subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-SC) compared to health-worker-administered intramuscular DMPA (DMPA-IM) in Uganda. STUDY DESIGN:We developed a decision-tree model with a 12-month time horizon for a hypothetical cohort of approximately 1 million injectable contraceptive users in Uganda to estimate the incremental costs per pregnancy averted and per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. The study design derived model inputs from DMPA-SC self-injection continuation and costing research studies and peer-reviewed literature. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from societal and health system perspectives and conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of results. RESULTS:Self-injected DMPA-SC could prevent 10,827 additional unintended pregnancies and 1620 maternal DALYs per year for this hypothetical cohort compared to DMPA-IM administered by facility-based health workers. Due to savings in women's time and travel costs, under a societal perspective, self-injection could save approximately US$1 million or $84,000 per year, depending on the self-injection training aid used. From a health system perspective, self-injection would avert more pregnancies but incur additional costs. A training approach using a one-page client instruction sheet would make self-injection cost-effective compared to DMPA-IM, with incremental costs per pregnancy averted of $15 and per maternal DALY averted of $98. Sensitivity analysis showed that the estimates were robust. The one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the costs of the first visit for self-injection (which include training costs) were an important variable impacting the cost-effectiveness estimates. CONCLUSIONS:Under a societal perspective, self-injected DMPA-SC averted more pregnancies and cost less compared to health-worker-administered DMPA-IM. Under a health system perspective, self-injected DMPA-SC can be cost-effective relative to DMPA-IM when a lower-cost visual aid for client training is used. IMPLICATIONS:Self-injection has economic benefits for women through savings in time and travel costs, and it averts additional pregnancies and maternal disability-adjusted life years compared to health-worker-administered injectable DMPA-IM. Implementing lower-cost approaches to client training can help ensure that self-injection is also cost-effective from a health system perspective.

journal_name

Contraception

journal_title

Contraception

authors

Di Giorgio L,Mvundura M,Tumusiime J,Morozoff C,Cover J,Drake JK

doi

10.1016/j.contraception.2018.07.137

subject

Has Abstract

pub_date

2018-11-01 00:00:00

pages

396-404

issue

eissn

0010-7824

issn

1879-0518

pii

S0010-7824(18)30390-1

journal_volume

pub_type

杂志文章

在线工具

Is contraceptive self-injection cost-effective compared to contraceptive injections from facility-based health workers? Evidence from Uganda.