Search

The World Bank is publishing nine volumes of Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition (DCP3) between 2015 and 2018. Volume 9, Improving Health and Reducing Poverty, summarises the main messages from all the volumes and contains cross-cutting analyses. This Review draws on all nine volumes to convey conclusions. The analysis in DCP3 is built around 21 essential packages that were developed in the nine volumes. Each essential package addresses the concerns of a major professional community (eg, child health or surgery) and contains a mix of intersectoral policies and health-sector interventions. 71 intersectoral prevention policies were identified in total, 29 of which are priorities for early introduction. Interventions within the health sector were grouped onto five platforms (population based, community level, health centre, first-level hospital, and referral hospital). DCP3 defines a model concept of essential universal health coverage (EUHC) with 218 interventions that provides a starting point for country-specific analysis of priorities. Assuming steady-state implementation by 2030, EUHC in lower-middle-income countries would reduce premature deaths by an estimated 4·2 million per year. Estimated total costs prove substantial: about 9·1% of (current) gross national income (GNI) in low-income countries and 5·2% of GNI in lower-middle-income countries. Financing provision of continuing intervention against chronic conditions accounts for about half of estimated incremental costs. For lower-middle-income countries, the mortality reduction from implementing the EUHC can only reach about half the mortality reduction in non-communicable diseases called for by the Sustainable Development Goals. Full achievement will require increased investment or sustained intersectoral action, and actions by finance ministries to tax smoking and polluting emissions and to reduce or eliminate (often large) subsidies on fossil fuels appear of central importance. DCP3 is intended to be a model starting point for analyses at the country level, but country-specific cost structures, epidemiological needs, and national priorities will generally lead to definitions of EUHC that differ from country to country and from the model in this Review. DCP3 is particularly relevant as achievement of EUHC relies increasingly on greater domestic finance, with global developmental assistance in health focusing more on global public goods. In addition to assessing effects on mortality, DCP3 looked at outcomes of EUHC not encompassed by the disability-adjusted life-year metric and related cost-effectiveness analyses. The other objectives included financial protection (potentially better provided upstream by keeping people out of the hospital rather than downstream by paying their hospital bills for them), stillbirths averted, palliative care, contraception, and child physical and intellectual growth. The first 1000 days after conception are highly important for child development, but the next 7000 days are likewise important and often neglected.

The realisation of human potential for development requires age-specific investment throughout the 8000 days of childhood and adolescence. Focus on the first 1000 days is an essential but insufficient investment. Intervention is also required in three later phases: the middle childhood growth and consolidation phase (5-9 years), when infection and malnutrition constrain growth, and mortality is higher than previously recognised; the adolescent growth spurt (10-14 years), when substantial changes place commensurate demands on good diet and health; and the adolescent phase of growth and consolidation (15-19 years), when new responses are needed to support brain maturation, intense social engagement, and emotional control. Two cost-efficient packages, one delivered through schools and one focusing on later adolescence, would provide phase-specific support across the life cycle, securing the gains of investment in the first 1000 days, enabling substantial catch-up from early growth failure, and leveraging improved learning from concomitant education investments.

Simple Summary: This research set out to systematically review available cost-effectiveness studies on gastric cancer (GC) screening across the world. Of the studies reviewed, the majority were model-based, while fewer were prospective observational-based studies. The results of the review point to a distinction between Asian-based and non-Asian-based studies. The data revealed a higher risk of GC in Asian countries and their diasporas because of the elevated prevalence of one of the main risk factors within this population group, i.e., Helicobacter pylori (Hp) infections, compared with non-Asian populations. GC screening was mainly cost-effective in these high-risk groups, with a probability of at least 85% compared to no screening. Primary intervention, which involves Hp screening with eradication, was a preferred strategy as it addresses the main causative factor and limits the development of GC. Secondary intervention, which involves endoscopic screening, was also cost-effective but is typically used to identify adenocarcinomas rather than precancerous conditions. GC screening was generally not cost-effective among Western countries. Gastric cancer (GC) poses notable economic and health burdens in settings where the incidence of disease is prevalent. Some countries have established early screening and treatment programs to address these challenges. The objectives of this systematic review were to summarize the cost-effectiveness of gastric cancer screening presented in the literature and to identify the critical factors that influence the cost-effectiveness of screening. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Economic evaluation studies of gastric cancer screening were reviewed from SCOPUS and PubMed. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) was used to assess the quality of reporting presented in the selected articles. Only primary economic evaluation studies addressing the cost-effectiveness, cost–utility, and cost–benefit of gastric cancer screening were selected. Two reviewers scrutinized the selected articles (title, abstract, and full text) to determine suitability for the systematic review based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Authors' consensus was relied on where disagreements arose. The main outcome measures of concern in the systematic review were cost, effectiveness (as measured by either quality-adjusted life years (QALY) or life-years saved (LYS)), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of screening versus either no screening or an alternative screening method. Thirty-one studies were selected for the final review. These studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of GC screening based on either primary, secondary, or a combination of primary and secondary interventions. The main primary intervention was Helicobacter pylori (Hp) screening with eradication, while the main secondary intervention was endoscopic screening. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated against no screening or screening using an alternative method in both observational and model-based studies. Screening was mainly cost-effective in Asian countries or their diasporas where the prevalence of GC was high. GC screening was generally not cost-effective among Western countries. GC screening can be cost-effective, but cost-effectiveness is dependent on context-specific factors, including geographical location, the prevalence of GC in the local population, and the screening tool adopted. However, there is benefit in targeting high-risk population groups in Asian countries and their diaspora for GC screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]