IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0197485.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The costs and cost effectiveness of providing second-trimester medical and surgical safe abortion services in Western Cape Province, South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Naomi Lince-Deroche
  • Deborah Constant
  • Jane Harries
  • Judith Kluge
  • Kelly Blanchard
  • Edina Sinanovic
  • Daniel Grossman

Abstract

Background: In South Africa, access to second-trimester abortion services, which are generally performed using medical induction with misoprostol alone, is challenging for many women. We aimed to estimate the costs and cost effectiveness of providing three safe second-trimester abortion services (dilation and evacuation (D&E)), medical induction with mifepristone and misoprostol (MI-combined), or medical induction with misoprostol alone (MI-misoprostol)) in Western Cape Province, South Africa to aid policymakers with planning for service provision in South Africa and similar settings. Methods: We derived clinical outcomes data for this economic evaluation from two previously conducted clinical studies. In 2013–2014, we collected cost data from three public hospitals where the studies took place. We collected cost data from the health service perspective through micro-costing activities, including discussions with site staff. We used decision tree analysis to estimate average costs per patient interaction (e.g. first visit, procedure visit, etc.), the total average cost per procedure, and cost-effectiveness in terms of the cost per complete abortion. We discounted equipment costs at 3%, and present the results in 2015 US dollars. Results: D&E services were the least costly and the most cost-effective at $91.17 per complete abortion. MI-combined was also less costly and more cost-effective (at $298.03 per complete abortion) than MI-misoprostol (at $375.31 per complete abortion), in part due to a shortened inpatient stay. However, an overlap in the plausible cost ranges for the two medical procedures suggests that the two may have equivalent costs in some circumstances. Conclusion: D&E was most cost-effective in this analysis. However, due to resistance from health care providers and other barriers, these services are not widely available and scale-up is challenging. Given South Africa’s reliance on medical induction, switching to the combined regimen could result in greater access to second-trimester services due to shorter inpatient stays without increasing costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Naomi Lince-Deroche & Deborah Constant & Jane Harries & Judith Kluge & Kelly Blanchard & Edina Sinanovic & Daniel Grossman, 2018. "The costs and cost effectiveness of providing second-trimester medical and surgical safe abortion services in Western Cape Province, South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0197485
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197485
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197485
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197485&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0197485?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:pone00:0197485. 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.