IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0174615.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The costs and cost effectiveness of providing first-trimester, medical and surgical safe abortion services in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Naomi Lince-Deroche
  • Tamara Fetters
  • Edina Sinanovic
  • Jaymala Devjee
  • Jack Moodley
  • Kelly Blanchard

Abstract

Background: Despite a liberal abortion law, access to safe abortion services in South Africa is challenging for many women. Medication abortion was introduced in 2013, but its reach remains limited. We aimed to estimate the costs and cost effectiveness of providing first-trimester medication abortion and manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) services to inform planning for first-trimester service provision in South Africa and similar settings. Methods: We obtained data on service provision and outcomes from an operations research study where medication abortion was introduced alongside existing MVA services in public hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal province. Clinical data were collected through interviews with first-trimester abortion clients and summaries completed by nurses performing the procedures. In parallel, we performed micro-costing at three of the study hospitals. Using a model built in Excel, we estimated the average cost per medical and surgical procedure and determined the cost per complete abortion performed. Results are presented in 2015 US dollars. Results: A total of 1,129 women were eligible for a first trimester abortion at the three study sites. The majority (886, 78.5%) were eligible to choose their abortion procedure; 94.1% (n = 834) chose medication abortion. The total average cost per medication abortion was $63.91 (52.32–75.51). The total average cost per MVA was higher at $69.60 (52.62–86.57); though the cost ranges for the two procedures overlapped. Given average costs, the cost per complete medication abortion was lower than the cost per complete MVA despite three (0.4%) medication abortion women being hospitalized and two (0.3%) having ongoing pregnancies at study exit. Personnel costs were the largest component of the total average cost of both abortion methods. Conclusion: This analysis supports the scale-up of medication abortion alongside existing MVA services in South Africa. Women can be offered a choice of methods, including medication abortion with MVA as a back-up, without increasing costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Naomi Lince-Deroche & Tamara Fetters & Edina Sinanovic & Jaymala Devjee & Jack Moodley & Kelly Blanchard, 2017. "The costs and cost effectiveness of providing first-trimester, medical and surgical safe abortion services in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0174615
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174615
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174615
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174615&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0174615?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Samantha R Lattof & Ernestina Coast & Yana van der Meulen Rodgers & Brittany Moore & Cheri Poss, 2020. "The mesoeconomics of abortion: A scoping review and analysis of the economic effects of abortion on health systems," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-25, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0174615. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.