Search

Introduction Maternal health services are effective in reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with pregnancy and childbirth. We conducted a systematic review on costs of maternal health services in low-income and middle-income countries from the provider’s perspective.\ud \ud Methods We searched multiple peer-reviewed databases (including African Journal Online, CINAHL Plus, EconLit, Popline, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) and grey literature for relevant articles published from year 2000. Articles meeting our inclusion criteria were selected with quality assessment done using relevant cost-focused criteria of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. For comparability, disaggregated costs data were inflated to 2019 US$ equivalents. Costs and cost drivers were systematically compared. Where heterogeneity was observed, narrative synthesis was used to summarise findings.\ud \ud Results Twenty-two studies were included, with most studies costing vaginal and/or caesarean delivery (11 studies), antenatal care (ANC) (9) and postabortion care (PAC) (8). Postnatal care (PNC) has been least costed (2). Studies used different methods for data collection and analysis. Quality of peer-reviewed studies was assessed average to high while all grey literature studies were assessed as low quality. Following inflation, estimated provision cost per service varied (ANC (US$7.24–US$31.42); vaginal delivery (US$14.32–US$278.22); caesarean delivery (US$72.11–US$378.940; PAC (US$97.09–US$1299.21); family planning (FP) (US$0.82–US$5.27); PNC (US$5.04)). These ranges could be explained by intercountry variations, variations in provider type (public/private), facility type (primary/secondary) and care complexity (simple/complicated). Personnel cost was mostly reported as the major driver for provision of ANC, skilled birth attendance and FP. Economies of scale in service provision were reported.\ud \ud Conclusion There is a cost savings case for task-shifting and encouraging women to use lower level facilities for uncomplicated services. Going forward, consensus regarding cost component definitions and methodologies for costing maternal health services will significantly help to improve the usefulness of cost analyses in supporting policymaking towards achieving Universal Health Coverage.

IntroductionA variety of community health workers (CHWs) provide maternal and newborn health (MNH) services in low-income and middle-income settings. However, there is a need for a better understanding of the diversity in type of CHW in each setting and responsibility, role, training duration and type of remuneration.MethodsWe identified CHWs providing MNH services in Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Malawi and Nigeria by reviewing 23 policy documents and conducting 36 focus group discussions and 131 key informant interviews. We analysed the data using thematic analysis.ResultsIrrespective of training duration (8 days to 3 years), all CHWs identify pregnant women, provide health education and screen for health conditions that require a referral to a higher level of care. Therapeutic care, antenatal care and skilled birth attendance, and provision of long-acting reversible contraceptives are within the exclusive remit of CHWs with training greater than 3 months. In contrast, community mobilisation and patient tracking are often done by CHWs with training shorter than 3 months. Challenges CHWs face include pressure to provide MNH services beyond their scope of practice during emergencies, and a tendency in some settings to focus CHWs on facility-based roles at the expense of their traditional community-based roles.ConclusionCHWs are well positioned geographically and socially to deliver some aspects of MNH care. However, there is a need to review and revise their scope of practice to reflect the varied duration of training and in-country legislation.

Introduction \ud Emergency obstetric care (EmOC) training is considered a key strategy for reducing maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Although generally considered effective, there is minimal evidence on the broader social impact and/or value-for-money (VfM). This study assessed the social impact and VfM of EmOC training in Kenya using social return on investment (SROI) methodology.\ud \ud Methods \ud Mixed-methods approach was used, including interviews (n=21), focus group discussions (n=18) incorporating a value game, secondary data analysis and literature review, to obtain all relevant data for the SROI analysis. Findings were incorporated into the impact map and used to estimate the SROI ratio. Sensitivity analyses were done to test assumptions.\ud \ud Results \ud Trained healthcare providers, women and their babies who received care from those providers were identified as primary beneficiaries. EmOC training led to improved knowledge and skills and improved attitudes towards patients. However, increased workload was reported as a negative outcome by some healthcare providers. Women who received care expected and experienced positive outcomes including reduced maternal and newborn morbidity and mortality. After accounting for external influences, the total social impact for 93 5-day EmOC training workshops over a 1-year period was valued at I$9.5 million, with women benefitting the most from the intervention (73%). Total direct implementation cost was I$745 000 for 2965 healthcare providers trained. The cost per trained healthcare provider per day was I$50.23 and SROI ratio was 12.74:1. Based on multiple one-way sensitivity analyses, EmOC training guaranteed VfM in all scenarios except when trainers were paid consultancy fees and the least amount of training outcomes occurred.\ud \ud Conclusion \ud EmOC training workshops are a worthwhile investment. The implementation approach influences how much VfM is achieved. The use of volunteer facilitators, particularly those based locally, to deliver EmOC training is a critical driver in increasing social impact and achieving VfM for investments made.

Responding to increasing demands to demonstrate value-for-money (VfM) for maternal and newborn health interventions, and in the absence of VfM analysis in peer-reviewed literature, this paper reviews VfM components and methods, critiques their applicability, strengths and weakness and proposes how VfM assessments can be improved. VfM comprises four components: economy, efficiency, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Both 'economy' and 'efficiency' can be assessed with detailed cost analysis utilising costs obtained from programme accounting data or generic cost databases. Before-and-after studies, case-control studies or randomised controlled trials can be used to assess 'effectiveness'. To assess 'cost-effectiveness', cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA) or social return on investment (SROI) analysis are applicable. Generally, costs can be obtained from programme accounting data or existing generic cost databases. As such 'economy' and 'efficiency' are relatively easy to assess. However, 'effectiveness' and 'cost-effectiveness' which require establishment of the counterfactual are more difficult to ascertain. Either a combination of CEA or CUA with tools for assessing other VfM components, or the independent use of CBA or SROI are alternative approaches proposed to strengthen VfM assessments. Cross-cutting themes such as equity, sustainability, scalability and cultural acceptability should also be assessed, as they provide critical contextual information for interpreting VfM assessments. To select an assessment approach, consideration should be given to the purpose, data availability, stakeholders requiring the findings and perspectives of programme beneficiaries. Implementers and researchers should work together to improve the quality of assessments. Standardisation around definitions, methodology and effectiveness measures to be assessed would help.