Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDaviaud, Emmanuelle
dc.contributor.authorBesada, Donela
dc.contributor.authorLeon, Natalie
dc.contributor.authorRohde, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorSanders, David
dc.contributor.authorOliphant, Nicholas
dc.contributor.authorDoherty, Tanya
dc.date.accessioned2018-10-31T08:47:59Z
dc.date.available2018-10-31T08:47:59Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.citationDaviaud, E. et al. (2017). Costs of implementing integrated community case management (iCCM) in six African countries: implications for sustainability. Journal of Global Health, 7(1): 010403.en_US
dc.identifier.issn2047-2978
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.7189/jogh.07.010403
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10566/4170
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND Sub–Saharan Africa still reports the highest rates of under– five mortality. Low cost, high impact interventions exist, however poor access remains a challenge. Integrated community case management (iCCM) was introduced to improve access to essential services for children 2–59 months through diagnosis, treatment and referral services by community health workers for malaria, pneumonia and diarrhea. This paper presents the results of an economic analysis of iCCM implementation in regions supported by UNICEF in six countries and assesses country–level scale–up implications. The paper focuses on costs to provider (health system and donors) to inform planning and budgeting, and does not cover cost–effectiveness. METHODS The analysis combines annualised set–up costs and 1 year implementation costs to calculate incremental economic and financial costs per treatment from a provider perspective. Affordability is assessed by calculating the per capita financial cost of the program as a percentage of the public health expenditure per capita. Time and financial implications of a 30% increase in utilization were modeled. Country scale–up is modeled for all children under 5 in rural areas. RESULTS Utilization of iCCM services varied from 0.05 treatment/y/under– five in Ethiopia to over 1 in Niger. There were between 10 and 603 treatments/community health worker (CHW)/y. Consultation cost represented between 93% and 22% of economic costs per treatment influenced by the level of utilization. Weighted economic cost per treatment ranged from US$ 13 (2015 USD) in Ghana to US$ 2 in Malawi. CHWs spent from 1 to 9 hours a week on iCCM. A 30% increase in utilization would add up to 2 hours a week, but reduce cost per treatment (by 20% in countries with low utilization). Country scale up would amount to under US$ 0.8 per capita total population (US$ 0.06–US$0.74), between 0.5% and 2% of public health expenditure per capita but 8% in Niger. CONCLUSIONS iCCM addresses unmet needs and impacts on under 5 mortality. An economic cost of under US$ 1/capita/y represents a sound investment. Utilization remains low however, and strategies must be developed as a priority to improve demand. Continued donor support is required to sustain iCCM services and strengthen its integration within national health systems.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherEdinburgh University Global Health Societyen_US
dc.rightsThis article is published under a CC-BY licence
dc.subjectSub–Saharan Africaen_US
dc.subjectUnder– five mortalityen_US
dc.subjectIntegrated community case management (iCCM)en_US
dc.subjectAccessen_US
dc.subjectEssential servicesen_US
dc.titleCosts of implementing integrated community case management (iCCM) in six African countries: implications for sustainabilityen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.privacy.showsubmitterFALSE
dc.status.ispeerreviewedTRUE


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record