IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v19y2021i2d10.1007_s40258-020-00605-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Effectiveness of Introducing Etonorgestrel Contraceptive Implant into India’s Current Family Welfare Programme

Author

Listed:
  • Beena Joshi

    (National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health)

  • Kusum V. Moray

    (National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health)

  • Oshima Sachin

    (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare)

  • Himanshu Chaurasia

    (National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health)

  • Shahina Begum

    (National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health)

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to provide evidence to policy makers on cost effectiveness and budget impact for the introduction of the etonorgestrel implant into the Indian public health system. Methods An economic evaluation was conducted to ascertain the potential costs and outcomes of adding the etonorgestrel implant to the public health system of India as compared to the current scenario. A decision analytical model (Markov cohort) was conceptualized from a societal perspective, where a hypothetical population of 15-year-old females was followed until menopause. The primary outcome was incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). Sources for model inputs included country-level secondary data analysis, government reports, an observational primary costing study, a systematic review of etonorgestrel implant and targeted literature reviews. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (OWSA and PSA) were performed to account for uncertainty. The impact of etonorgestrel implant introduction on the annual Indian health budget was also analysed. Results The base-case ICUR was 16,475 Indian rupees (INR) (USD 232) per quality-adjusted life-year gained, which showed the etonorgestrel implant to be very cost effective (ICUR below willingness-to-pay threshold of INR 137,945 [USD 1943]). OWSA showed that discount rate, percentage of people who do not use contraceptives and costs of managing side effects were the important parameters that affected ICUR. PSA showed that ICUR values of all 1000 Monte Carlo simulations were cost effective. Budget impact analysis showed that introduction of the implant would account for

Suggested Citation

  • Beena Joshi & Kusum V. Moray & Oshima Sachin & Himanshu Chaurasia & Shahina Begum, 2021. "Cost Effectiveness of Introducing Etonorgestrel Contraceptive Implant into India’s Current Family Welfare Programme," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 267-277, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-020-00605-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-020-00605-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-020-00605-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-020-00605-5?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(3), pages 367-372, June.
    2. Government of India, 2017. "National Health Policy 2017," Working Papers id:11664, eSocialSciences.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Journal round-up: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 19(2)
      by karanshahk2 in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-04-19 06:00:07

    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. Naomi Lince-Deroche & Craig van Rensburg & Jaqueline Roseleur & Busola Sanusi & Jane Phiri & Pam Michelow & Jennifer S Smith & Cindy Firnhaber, 2018. "Costs and cost-effectiveness of LEEP versus cryotherapy for treating cervical dysplasia among HIV-positive women in Johannesburg, South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-13, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Tajul Masron & Mduduzi Biyase & Talent Zwane & Thomas Udimal & Frederich Kirsten, 2023. "Ecological footprint and population health outcomes: an analysis of E7 countries," Economics Working Papers edwrg-07-2023, College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, South Africa, revised 2023.
    4. Shawhan, Daniel L. & Picciano, Paul D., 2019. "Costs and benefits of saving unprofitable generators: A simulation case study for US coal and nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 383-400.
    5. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    6. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    7. 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.
    8. Shu Yan & Lizi Pan & Yan Lu & Juan Chen & Ting Zhang & Dongzi Xu & Zhaolian Ouyang, 2023. "Towards Sustainable Drug Supply in China: A Bibliometric Analysis of Drug Reform Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-20, June.
    9. Bozena Wielgoszewska & Alex Bryson & Monica Costa-Dias & Francesca Foliano & Heather Joshi & David Wilkinson, 2021. "Exploring the Reasons for Labour Market Gender Inequality a Year into the Covid-19 Pandemic: Evidence from the UK Cohort Studies," DoQSS Working Papers 21-23, Quantitative Social Science - UCL Social Research Institute, University College London.
    10. Shi, Wunan & Wouters, Olivier J. & Liu, Gordon & Mossialos, Elias & Yang, Xiuyun, 2020. "Association between provincial income levels and drug prices in China over the period 2010–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    11. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    12. Katie Adamek & Sarah Bardin & So O'Neil & Dara Lee Luca, "undated". "Accelerating Teen Pregnancy Prevention in Phillips County, Arkansas and Coahoma County, Mississippi," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 7fda86cbb1bf4303a84f466e8, Mathematica Policy Research.
    13. Jesse Elliott & Sasha Katwyk & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & Becky Skidmore & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2019. "Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1261-1276, October.
    14. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Dan Greenberg & Josephine Mauskopf & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & David Moher & Elizabeth Loder & Chris Carswell, 2015. "Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 535-536, May.
    15. 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.
    16. Kathryn Schnippel & Naomi Lince-Deroche & Theo van den Handel & Seithati Molefi & Suann Bruce & Cynthia Firnhaber, 2015. "Cost Evaluation of Reproductive and Primary Health Care Mobile Service Delivery for Women in Two Rural Districts in South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-13, March.
    17. Rachel Elliott & Koen Putman & James Davies & Lieven Annemans, 2014. "A Review of the Methodological Challenges in Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacist Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1185-1199, December.
    18. Han, Lu & Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias & Opsahl, Tore, 2018. "The social network of international health aid," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 67-74.
    19. Abualbishr Alshreef & Michelle Jenks & William Green & Simon Dixon, 2016. "Review of Economic Submissions to NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 623-634, December.
    20. Burieva Nigora Hasanovna, 2019. "Models of Financing and Organization of Health Care System-International Experience," International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, Inovatus Services Ltd., vol. 5(5), pages 7-12, July.

    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:spr:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-020-00605-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.