Cost of maternal health services in low and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is substantial evidence that maternal health services across the continuum of care are effective in reducing morbidities and mortalities associated with pregnancy and childbirth. There is also consensus regarding the need to invest in the delivery of these services towards the global goal of achieving Universal Health Coverage in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). However, there is limited evidence on the costs of providing these services. This protocol describes the methods and analytical framework to be used in conducting a systematic review of costs of providing maternal health services in LMICs. METHODS: African Journal Online, CINAHL Plus, EconLit, Embase, Global Health Archive, Popline, PubMed and Scopus as well as grey literature databases will be searched for relevant articles which report primary cost data for maternal health service in LMICs published from January 2000 to June 2019. This search will be conducted without implementing any language restrictions. Two reviewers will independently search, screen and select articles that meet the inclusion criteria, with disagreements resolved by discussions with a third reviewer. Quality assessment of included articles will be conducted based on cost-focused criteria included in globally recommended checklists for economic evaluations. For comparability, where feasible, cost will be converted to international dollar equivalents using purchasing power parity conversion factors. Costs associated with providing each maternal health services will be systematically compared, using a subgroup analysis. Sensitivity analysis will also be conducted. Where heterogeneity is observed, a narrative synthesis will be used. Population contextual and intervention design characteristics that help achieve cost savings and improve efficiency of maternal health service provision in LMICs will be identified. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review. The plan for dissemination is to publish review findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present findings at high-level conferences that engage the most pertinent stakeholders. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018114124.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.108 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.097 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".