4.4 Review

Costing the distribution of insecticide-treated nets: a review of cost and cost-effectiveness studies to provide guidance on standardization of costing methodology

期刊

MALARIA JOURNAL
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-5-37

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) are an effective and cost-effective means of malaria control. Scaling-up coverage of ITNs is challenging. It requires substantial resources and there are a number of strategies to choose from. Information on the cost of different strategies is still scarce. To guide the choice of a delivery strategy ( or combination of strategies), reliable and standardized cost information for the different options is required. Methods: The electronic online database PubMed was used for a systematic search of the published English literature on costing and economic evaluations of ITN distribution programmes. The keywords used were: net, bednet, insecticide, treated, ITN, cost, effectiveness, economic and evaluation. Identified papers were analysed to determine and evaluate the costing methods used. Methods were judged against existing standards of cost analysis to arrive at proposed standards for undertaking and presenting cost analyses. Results: Cost estimates were often not readily comparable or could not be adjusted to a different context. This resulted from the wide range of methods applied and measures of output chosen. Most common shortcomings were the omission of certain costs and failure to adjust financial costs to generate economic costs. Generalisability was hampered by authors not reporting quantities and prices of resources separately and not examining the sensitivity of their results to variations in underlying assumptions. Conclusion: The observed shortcomings have arisen despite the abundance of literature and guidelines on costing of health care interventions. This paper provides ITN specific recommendations in the hope that these will help to standardize future cost estimates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据