Cost-effectiveness of a complex continuum of care intervention targeting women and children: protocol for an economic evaluation of the Bukhali trial in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As nearly two-thirds of women presenting at their first antenatal visit are either overweight or obese in urban South Africa, the preconception period is an opportunity to optimise health and offset transgenerational risk of both obesity and non-communicable diseases. This protocol describes the planned economic evaluation of an individually randomised controlled trial of a complex continuum of care intervention targeting women and children in Soweto, South Africa (Bukhali trial). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The economic evaluation of the Bukhali trial will be conducted as a within-trial analysis from both provider and societal perspectives. Incremental costs and health outcomes of the continuum of care intervention will be compared with standard care. The economic impact on implementing agencies (programme costs), healthcare providers, participants and their households will be estimated. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) will be calculated in terms of cost per case of child adiposity at age years averted. Additionally, ICERs will also be reported in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. If Bukhali demonstrates effectiveness, we will employ a decision analytical model to examine the cost-effectiveness of the intervention over a child's lifetime. A Markov model will be used to estimate long-term health benefits, healthcare costs and cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses will be conducted to explore uncertainty and ensure robust results. An analysis will be conducted to assess the equity impact of the intervention, by comparing intervention impact within quintiles of socioeconomic status. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Bukhali trial economic evaluation has ethical approval from the Human Ethics Research Committee of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa (M240162). The results of the economic evaluation will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant international conference. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR201903750173871; https://pactr.samrc.ac.za).
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 | 0.054 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.013 |
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".