Publication: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Community Case Management of Childhood Diarrhea in Burundi
Issued Date
2021-09-01
Resource Type
File Type
video/youtube
ISSN
22121102
22121099
22121099
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85116172791
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Value in Health Regional Issues. Vol.25, (2021), 157-164
Suggested Citation
Fulgence Niyibitegeka, Arthorn Riewpaiboon, Sermsiri Sangroongruangsri Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Community Case Management of Childhood Diarrhea in Burundi. Value in Health Regional Issues. Vol.25, (2021), 157-164. doi:10.1016/j.vhri.2021.03.005 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/76874
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Community Case Management of Childhood Diarrhea in Burundi
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of community case management (CCM) program of childhood diarrhea by providing oral rehydration salts and zinc through community health workers in Burundi. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis study using a Markov modeling approach was undertaken to assess the CCM program of diarrhea from both provider and societal perspectives. The CCM program was compared with the routine management of childhood diarrhea at health facilities. Primary data on the cost of childhood diarrhea management were collected. Both economic and health outcomes were assessed for a period of 5 years, and a discount rate of 3% was applied. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: The CCM program was found to be both less costly and more effective resulting to a negative value of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, indicating that the program was dominant producing cost savings. Compared with the routine treatment of diarrhea at health facilities, the CCM program would avert 2749 additional disability-adjusted life years over a period of 5 years. The economic burden was reduced of US$1 056 699 and US$2 328 531 from the provider and societal perspectives, respectively. The cost-effectiveness estimates were mostly sensitive to the discount rate and the cost of outpatient visits at health facilities. The intervention remained dominant with a 100% probability of cost savings within 10 000 simulations of the sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: Providing inexpensive diarrheal treatment (oral rehydration salts and zinc) in communities is an attractive cost-effective intervention. Evidence from this study should be used to scale up the coverage of this life- and cost-saving intervention.