Cost-effectiveness analysis of proactive home visits compared with site-based community health worker care on antenatal care outcomes in Mali: a cluster-randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite recommendations from the WHO, antenatal care (ANC) coverage remains low in many low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Community health workers (CHWs) can play an important role in expanding ANC coverage through pregnancy identification, provision of health education, screening for complications, delivery of therapeutic care and referral to higher levels of care. However, despite the success of CHW programmes in various countries, WHO has called for additional research to develop evidence-based models that optimise CHW service delivery and that can be replicated across geographies. METHODS: The ProCCM Trial was a cluster-randomised controlled trial to compare proactive home visits by CHWs (intervention, 69 village clusters) to the provision of CHW care at community fixed sites only (control, 68 village clusters) in the Bankass health district in Central Mali. In this study, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of proactive CHW home visits in improving ANC utilisation, a secondary outcome of the ProCCM trial. We analysed five ANC outcomes: (1) number of ANC contacts, (2) at least one ANC contact, (3) at least four ANC contacts, (4) at least eight ANC contacts and (5) ANC initiated in the first trimester. We assumed two perspectives, a CHW programme's and the Full ANC programme's perspective, which included facility-based as well as community-based ANC. We estimated programme costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and probabilities of the intervention being more cost-effective than the control at different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. RESULTS: Proactive home visits were cost-saving from the CHW programme's perspective (ICERs: -$21.39 to -$79.20 per ANC utilisation outcome) and from the Full ANC programme perspective (ICERs: -$1.70 to -$6.30 per ANC utilisation outcome) compared with the fixed-site CHW care. The likelihood of the intervention being more cost-effective than the control was 100% at WTP thresholds $0 per ANC utilisation outcome and between $12.5 and $50.00 per ANC utilisation outcome in the CHW- and Full ANC programme perspectives, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results provide evidence that proactive home visits produce more value per dollar spent as a means of improving the uptake of ANC services compared with fixed-site CHW services. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02694055.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".