Trial-based economic evaluation of the system-integrated activation of community health volunteers in rural Ghana

Bibliographic Data

ID19529943
AuthorsYinseo Cho (0000-0003-1516-4019, Korea International Cooperation Agency), John Koku Awoonor‐Williams (0000-0002-1094-8212, Ghana Health Service), Koku Awoonor-Williams, Damin Jun (0000-0001-9901-117X, Korea International Cooperation Agency), Chung Hyeon Oh (0000-0002-1631-3103, Korea International Cooperation Agency), Seungman Cha (0000-0003-1264-3313, Handong Global University, corresponding author)
Year2023
Volume16
Issue1
Pages2203541-2203541
Publication date2023-12-31
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueGlobal Health Action (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1654-9716 • E-ISSN: 1654-9880
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/16549716.2023.2203541
PMID37165851
OpenAlexW4376130993
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited19

BACKGROUND: Globally, steps to revitalise programmes deploying community health workers (CHWs) on a national scale have been growing, but few economic evaluations have been done on system-integrated CHW programmes. Ghana has dual cadres of CHWs: community health officers (CHOs) and community health volunteers (CHVs). CHO plays a major role in primary health services but has suffered from chronic staff shortages. We activated CHVs in communities to mitigate the negative impact due to CHO shortages. The CHVs conducted home visits and provided health education to prevent childhood diseases. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of activating CHVs. METHODS: In a cluster-randomised trial with 40 communities in rural Ghana, the changes in disease incidence were inferred from a statistical model using a Bayesian generalised linear multilevel model. We evaluated the total incremental cost, benefit, and effectiveness for the intervention from an economic model. In cost-effectiveness analysis, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were estimated using a decision tree model. In the cost-benefit analysis, the cost-benefit ratio and net present value of benefit were estimated using a decision tree model, and a standardised sensitivity analysis was conducted. The decision tree model was a one-year cycle and run over 10-years. Costs, benefits, and effectiveness were discounted at a rate of 3% per year. RESULTS: According to the cost-effectiveness analysis, the programme was highly likely to exceed the WHO-CHOICE threshold (1-3 times GDP per capita), but it was unlikely to exceed the conservative threshold (10-50% of GDP per capita). In the cost-benefit analysis, the mean and median cost-benefit ratios were 6.4 and 4.8, respectively. CONCLUSION: We found the potential economic strengths in the cost-benefit analysis. To integrate CHW programmes with national health systems, we need more research to find the most effective scope of work for CHWs

Community health · Cost effectiveness · Cost-effectiveness analysis · Cost–benefit analysis · Economic evaluation · Economics · Environmental health · Per capita · Political science · Population · Program evaluation · Public health · Quality-adjusted life year · Rural area · Socioeconomics · Statistics · Global Health and Surgery · Global Maternal and Child Health · Healthcare Systems and Reforms · Medicine · Nursing