Publication:
Is diabetes and hypertension screening worthwhile in resource-limited settings? An economic evaluation based on a pilot of a Package of Essential Non-communicable disease interventions in Bhutan

dc.contributor.authorWangchuk Dukpaen_US
dc.contributor.authorYot Teerawattananonen_US
dc.contributor.authorWaranya Rattanavipapongen_US
dc.contributor.authorVaralak Srinonpraserten_US
dc.contributor.authorWatsamon Tongsrien_US
dc.contributor.authorPritaporn Kingkaewen_US
dc.contributor.authorJomkwan Yothasamuten_US
dc.contributor.authorDorji Wangchuken_US
dc.contributor.authorTandin Dorjien_US
dc.contributor.authorKinzang Wangmoen_US
dc.contributor.otherMinistry of Healthen_US
dc.contributor.otherThailand Ministry of Public Healthen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-23T11:06:07Z
dc.date.available2018-11-23T11:06:07Z
dc.date.issued2015-01-01en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2014 Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. In response to a lack of cost-effective data on screening and early treatment of diabetes and hypertension in resource-limited settings, a model-based economic evaluation was performed on the World Health Organization (WHO)'s Package of Essential Non-communicable (PEN) disease interventions for primary health care in Bhutan. Both local and international data were applied in the model in order to derive lifetime costs and outcomes resulting from the early treatment of diabetes and hypertension. The results indicate that the current screening option (where people who are overweight, obese or aged 40 years or older who visit primary care facilities are screened for diabetes and hypertension) represents good value for money compared to 'no screening'. The study findings also indicate that expanding opportunistic screening (70% coverage of the target population) to universal screening (where 100% of the target population are screened), is likely to be even more cost-effective. From the sensitivity analysis, the value of the screening options remains the same when disease prevalence varies. Therefore, applying this model to other healthcare settings is warranted, since disease prevalence is one of the major factors in affecting the cost-effectiveness results of screening programs.en_US
dc.identifier.citationHealth Policy and Planning. Vol.30, No.8 (2015), 1032-1043en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/heapol/czu106en_US
dc.identifier.issn14602237en_US
dc.identifier.issn02681080en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-84943540083en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/36839
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84943540083&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleIs diabetes and hypertension screening worthwhile in resource-limited settings? An economic evaluation based on a pilot of a Package of Essential Non-communicable disease interventions in Bhutanen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84943540083&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections