Search

Abstract Background Engaging citizens and communities to make services accountable is vital to achieving health development goals. Community participation in health management committees can increase public accountability of health services. We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial to test the impact of strengthened health management committees (HMCs) and community mobilisation through women’s groups on institutional deliveries and deliveries by trained health workers in rural Nepal. Methods The study was conducted in all Village Development Committee clusters in the hills district of Makwanpur (population of 420,500). In 21 intervention clusters, we conducted three-day workshops with HMCs to improve their capacity for planning and action and supported female community health volunteers to run women’s groups. These groups met once a month and mobilised communities to address barriers to institutional delivery through participatory learning and action cycles. We compared this intervention with 22 control clusters. Prospective surveillance from October 2010 to the end of September 2012 captured complete data on 13,721 deliveries in intervention and control areas. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results The women’s group intervention was implemented as intended, but we were unable to support HMCs as planned because many did not meet regularly. The activities of community based organisations were systematically targeted at control clusters, which meant that there were no true ‘control’ clusters. 39% (5403) of deliveries were in health institutions and trained health workers attended most of them. There were no differences between trial arms in institutional delivery uptake (1.45, 0.76–2.78) or attendance by trained health workers (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.74–2.74). Conclusions The absence of a true counterfactual and inadequate coverage of the HMC strengthening intervention impedes our ability to draw conclusions. Further research is needed to test the effectiveness of strengthening public accountability mechanisms on increased utilisation of services at delivery. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99834806 . Date of registration:28/09/10.

Background: Current guidelines for the conduct of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) are mainly applicable to facility-based interventions in high-income settings. Differences in the unit of analysis and the high cost of data collection can make these guidelines challenging to follow within public health trials in low- and middle- income settings. Objective: This paper reflects on the challenges experienced within our own work and proposes solutions that may be useful to others attempting to collect, analyse, and compare cost data between public health research sites in low- and middle-income countries. Design: We describe the generally accepted methods (norms) for collecting and analysing cost data in a single-site trial from the provider perspective. We then describe our own experience applying these methods within eight comparable cluster randomised, controlled, trials. We describe the strategies used to maximise adherence to the norm, highlight ways in which we deviated from the norm, and reflect on the learning and limitations that resulted. Results: When the expenses incurred by a number of small research sites are used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of delivering an intervention on a national scale, then deciding which expenses constitute ‘start-up’ costs will be a nontrivial decision that may differ among sites. Similarly, the decision to include or exclude research or monitoring and evaluation costs can have a significant impact on the findings. We separated out research costs and argued that monitoring and evaluation costs should be reported as part of the total trial cost. The human resource constraints that we experienced are also likely to be common to other trials. As we did not have an economist in each site, we collaborated with key personnel at each site who were trained to use a standardised cost collection tool. This approach both accommodated our resource constraints and served as a knowledge sharing and capacity building process within the research teams. Conclusions: Given the practical reality of conducting randomised, controlled trials of public health interventions in low- and middle- income countries, it is not always possible to adhere to prescribed guidelines for the analysis of cost effectiveness. Compromises are frequently required as researchers seek a pragmatic balance between rigor and feasibility. There is no single solution to this tension but researchers are encouraged to be mindful of the limitations that accompany compromise, whilst being reassured that meaningful analyses can still be conducted with the resulting data.