Economic Analysis of the CLIP Trials in India, Pakistan and Mozambique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background : The Community-Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) Trials (NCT01911494) in India, Pakistan, and Mozambique (February 2014-7) involved community engagement and task-sharing with community health workers for triage and initial treatment of pregnancy hypertension. Maternal and perinatal mortality was less frequent among women who received ≥8 CLIP contacts. The aim of this analysis was to assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of the CLIP intervention overall, and by POM visit frequency. Methods : Included were all women enrolled in the three CLIP trials who had delivered with known outcomes by trial end. According to the number of POM-guided home contacts received (0, 1-3, 4-7, ³8), costs were collected from annual budgets and spending receipts, with inclusion of family opportunity costs in Pakistan. A decision-tree model was built to determine the cost-effectiveness of the intervention (vs. usual care), based on the primary clinical endpoint of years-of-life-lost (YLL) for mothers and infants. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to assess uncertainty in the cost and clinical outcomes. Results : The incremental per pregnancy cost of the intervention was USD$12.66 (India), USD$11.51 (Pakistan) and USD$13.26 (Mozambique). As implemented, the intervention was not cost-effective, due largely to minimal differences in years-of-life-lost between arms. However, among women who received ≥8 contacts (4 in Pakistan), the probability of health system and family (Pakistan) cost-effectiveness was ≥80% (all countries). Conclusion : The intervention was likely to be cost-effective for women receiving ≥8 contacts in Mozambique and India, and ≥4 in Pakistan, supporting World Health Organization guidance on antenatal contact frequency. Funding: The University of British Columbia, a grantee of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1017337). Trial registration : clinicaltrials.gov. Registered 30 July 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01911494
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".