Cost effectiveness of a novel device for improving resuscitation of apneic newborns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intrapartum-related hypoxic events are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in low resource countries. Neonates who receive proper resuscitation may go on to live otherwise healthy lives. However, even when a birth attendant is present, these babies frequently receive suboptimal ventilation with poor outcomes. The Augmented Infant Resuscitator (AIR) is a low-cost, reusable device designed to provide birth attendants real-time objective feedback on measures of ventilation quality during resuscitations and is intended for use in training and at the point of care. The goal of our study was to determine the impact and cost-effectiveness of AIR deployment in conjunction with existing resuscitation training programs in low resource settings. METHODS: We developed a simulation model of the natural history of intrapartum-related neonatal hypoxia and resuscitation deriving parameters from published literature and model calibration. Simulations estimated the number of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted with use of the AIR by birth attendants if deployed at the point of care. Potential decreases in neonatal mortality and long-term subsequent morbidity from disability were modeled over a lifetime horizon. The primary outcome for the analysis was the cost per DALY averted. Model parameters were specific to the Mbeya region of Tanzania. RESULTS: Implementation of the AIR strategy resulted in an additional cost of $24.44 (4.80, 73.62) per DALY averted on top of the cost of existing, validated resuscitation programs. Per hospital, this adds an extra $656 to initial training costs and averts approximately 26.84 years of disability in the cohort of children born in the first year, when projected over a lifetime. The findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. Total roll-out costs for AIR are estimated at $422,688 for the Mbeya region, averting approximately 9018 DALYs on top of existing resuscitation programs, which are estimated to cost $202,240 without AIR. CONCLUSION: Our modeling analysis finds that use of the AIR device may be both an effective and cost-effective tool when used as a supplement to existing resuscitation training programs. Implementation of this strategy in multiple settings will provide data to improve our model parameters and potentially confirm our findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".