IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0168447.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Neily Zakiyah
  • Antoinette D I van Asselt
  • Frank Roijmans
  • Maarten J Postma

Abstract

Background: A significant number of women in low and middle income countries (L-MICs) who need any family planning, experience a lack in access to modern effective methods. This study was conducted to review potential cost effectiveness of scaling up family planning interventions in these regions from the published literatures and assess their implication for policy and future research. Study design: A systematic review was performed in several electronic databases i.e Medline (Pubmed), Embase, Popline, The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), EBSCOHost, and The Cochrane Library. Articles reporting full economic evaluations of strategies to improve family planning interventions in one or more L-MICs, published between 1995 until 2015 were eligible for inclusion. Data was synthesized and analyzed using a narrative approach and the reporting quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Results: From 920 references screened, 9 studies were eligible for inclusion. Six references assessed cost effectiveness of improving family planning interventions in one or more L-MICs, while the rest assessed costs and consequences of integrating family planning and HIV services, concerning sub-Saharan Africa. Assembled evidence suggested that improving family planning interventions is cost effective in a variety of L-MICs as measured against accepted international cost effectiveness benchmarks. In areas with high HIV prevalence, integrating family planning and HIV services can be efficient and cost effective; however the evidence is only supported by a very limited number of studies. The major drivers of cost effectiveness were cost of increasing coverage, effectiveness of the interventions and country-specific factors. Conclusion: Improving family planning interventions in low and middle income countries appears to be cost-effective. Additional economic evaluation studies with improved reporting quality are necessary to generate further evidence on costs, cost-effectiveness, and affordability, and to support increased funding and investments in family planning programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0168447
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168447
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168447
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168447&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0168447?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samuel Shillcutt & Damian Walker & Catherine Goodman & Anne Mills, 2009. "Cost Effectiveness in Low- and Middle-Income Countries," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(11), pages 903-917, November.
    2. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    3. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    4. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    5. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    6. Tom Drake, 2014. "Priority Setting In Global Health: Towards A Minimum Daly Value," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(2), pages 248-252, February.
    7. Delphine Hu & Stefano M Bertozzi & Emmanuela Gakidou & Steve Sweet & Sue J Goldie, 2007. "The Costs, Benefits, and Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions to Reduce Maternal Morbidity and Mortality in Mexico," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-10, August.
    8. Robert Black & Ramanan Laxminarayan & Marleen Temmerman & Neff Walker, 2016. "Disease Control Priorities, Third Edition," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 23833, December.
    9. Sue J Goldie & Steve Sweet & Natalie Carvalho & Uma Chandra Mouli Natchu & Delphine Hu, 2010. "Alternative Strategies to Reduce Maternal Mortality in India: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(4), pages 1-1, April.
    10. Joseph B Babigumira & Andy Stergachis & David L Veenstra & Jacqueline S Gardner & Joseph Ngonzi & Peter Mukasa-Kivunike & Louis P Garrison, 2012. "Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Universal Access to Modern Contraceptives in Uganda," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-9, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Enden, M.R. & Tolla, M.T. & Norheim, O.F., 2021. "Providing universal access to modern contraceptive methods: An extended cost-effectiveness analysis of meeting the demand for modern contraception in Ethiopia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 281(C).
    2. de Paula, Aureo & Miller, Grant & Valente, Christine, 2020. "Subjective Expectations and Demand for Contraception," CEPR Discussion Papers 14526, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Camila Perera & Shivit Bakrania & Alessandra Ipince & Zahrah Nesbitt‐Ahmed & Oluwaseun Obasola & Dominic Richardson & Jorinde Van de Scheur & Ruichuan Yu, 2022. "Impact of social protection on gender equality in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review of reviews," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brown, Vicki & Diomedi, Belen Zapata & Moodie, Marj & Veerman, J. Lennert & Carter, Rob, 2016. "A systematic review of economic analyses of active transport interventions that include physical activity benefits," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 190-208.
    2. Tom L. Drake & Angela Devine & Shunmay Yeung & Nicholas P. J. Day & Lisa J. White & Yoel Lubell, 2016. "Dynamic Transmission Economic Evaluation of Infectious Disease Interventions in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Literature Review," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 124-139, February.
    3. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    4. Paul Tappenden & James Chilcott, 2014. "Avoiding and Identifying Errors and Other Threats to the Credibility of Health Economic Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 967-979, October.
    5. S. Rajsic & H. Gothe & H. H. Borba & G. Sroczynski & J. Vujicic & T. Toell & Uwe Siebert, 2019. "Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 107-134, February.
    6. Maximilian Hatz & Reiner Leidl & Nichola Yates & Björn Stollenwerk, 2014. "A Systematic Review of the Quality of Economic Models Comparing Thrombosis Inhibitors in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 377-393, April.
    7. Susanne Mayer & Noemi Kiss & Agata Łaszewska & Judit Simon, 2017. "Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    8. Nikita M. John & Stuart J. Wright & Sean P. Gavan & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "The role of information provision in economic evaluations of non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(8), pages 1123-1131, November.
    9. Nadia Yakhelef & Martine Audibert & Gabriella Ferlazzo & Joseph Sitienei & Steve Wanjala & Francis Varaine & Maryline Bonnet & Helena Huerga, 2020. "Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic algorithms including lateral-flow urine lipoarabinomannan for HIV-positive patients with symptoms of tuberculosis," Post-Print halshs-03170014, HAL.
    10. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Paul Stolee & Don Juzwishin & Don Husereau, 2018. "Economic evaluations of eHealth technologies: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-11, June.
    11. Stephanie Bogdewic & Rohit Ramaswamy & David M Goodman & Emmanuel K Srofenyoh & Sebnem Ucer & Medge D Owen, 2020. "The cost-effectiveness of a program to reduce intrapartum and neonatal mortality in a referral hospital in Ghana," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-18, November.
    12. Sarah J Iribarren & Kenrick Cato & Louise Falzon & Patricia W Stone, 2017. "What is the economic evidence for mHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-20, February.
    13. Nadia Yakhelef & Martine Audibert & Gabriella Ferlazzo & Joseph Sitienei & Steve Wanjala & Francis Varaine & Maryline Bonnet & Helena Huerga, 2020. "Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic algorithms including lateral-flow urine lipoarabinomannan for HIV-positive patients with symptoms of tuberculosis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, January.
    14. Valentin Brodszky & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Petra Baji & Fanni Rencz & Márta Péntek & Alexandru Rotar & Konstantin Tachkov & Susanne Mayer & Judit Simon & Maciej Niewada & Rok Hren & László Gulácsi, 2019. "Cost-of-illness studies in nine Central and Eastern European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 155-172, June.
    15. Magnus Zingmark & Fredrik Norström & Lars Lindholm & Synneve Dahlin-Ivanoff & Susanne Gustafsson, 2019. "Modelling long-term cost-effectiveness of health promotion for community-dwelling older people," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 395-404, December.
    16. Jeroen T J M van Dijck & Mark D Dijkman & Robbin H Ophuis & Godard C W de Ruiter & Wilco C Peul & Suzanne Polinder, 2019. "In-hospital costs after severe traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and quality assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-21, May.
    17. Laura Burgers & William Redekop & Johan Severens, 2014. "Challenges in Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Various Interventions for Cardiovascular Disease," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(7), pages 627-637, July.
    18. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    19. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    20. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.

    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:pone00:0168447. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.