RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Policy makers need to be rapidly informed about the potential equity consequences of different COVID-19 strategies, alongside their broader health and economic impacts. While there are complex models to inform both potential health and macro-economic impact, there are few tools available to rapidly assess potential equity impacts of interventions. METHODS: We created an economic model to simulate the impact of lockdown measures in Pakistan, Georgia, Chile, UK, the Philippines and South Africa. We consider impact of lockdown in terms of ability to socially distance, and income loss during lockdown, and tested the impact of assumptions on social protection coverage in a scenario analysis. RESULTS: In all examined countries, socioeconomic status (SES) quintiles 1-3 were disproportionately more likely to experience income loss (70% of people) and inability to socially distance (68% of people) than higher SES quintiles. Improving social protection increased the percentage of the workforce able to socially distance from 48% (33%-60%) to 66% (44%-71%). We estimate the cost of this social protection would be equivalent to an average of 0.6% gross domestic product (0.1% Pakistan-1.1% Chile). CONCLUSIONS: We illustrate the potential for using publicly available data to rapidly assess the equity implications of social protection and non-pharmaceutical intervention policy. Social protection is likely to mitigate inequitable health and economic impacts of lockdown. Although social protection is usually targeted to the poorest, middle quintiles will likely also need support as they are most likely to suffer income losses and are disproportionately more exposed.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles , Equidad en Salud , Pobreza , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Chile/epidemiología , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/métodos , Georgia/epidemiología , Equidad en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Modelos Económicos , Pakistán/epidemiología , Filipinas/epidemiología , Pobreza/estadística & datos numéricos , Sudáfrica/epidemiología , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Studies have addressed cost-effectiveness of syphilis testing of pregnant women in high-prevalence settings. This study compares costs of rapid syphilis testing (RST) with laboratory-based rapid plasma reagin (RPR) tests in low-prevalence settings in Peru. The RST was introduced in a tertiary-level maternity hospital and in the Ventanilla Network of primary health centers, where syphilis prevalence is approximately 1%. The costs per woman tested and treated with RST at the hospital were $2.70 and $369 respectively compared with $3.60 and $740 for RPR. For the Ventanilla Network the costs per woman tested and treated with RST were $3.19 and $295 respectively compared with $5.55 and $1454 for RPR. The cost per DALY averted using RST was $46 vs. $109 for RPR. RST showed lower costs compared to the WHO standard costs per DALY ($64). Findings suggest syphilis screening with RST is cost-effective in low-prevalence settings.
Asunto(s)
Pruebas en el Punto de Atención/economía , Complicaciones Infecciosas del Embarazo/diagnóstico , Complicaciones Infecciosas del Embarazo/epidemiología , Sífilis/diagnóstico , Sífilis/epidemiología , Aborto Espontáneo , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Parto Obstétrico , Femenino , Humanos , Madres , Perú/epidemiología , Embarazo , Prevalencia , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Rapid plasma reagin (RPR) is frequently used to test women for maternal syphilis. Rapid syphilis immunochromatographic strip tests detecting only Treponema pallidum antibodies (single RSTs) or both treponemal and non-treponemal antibodies (dual RSTs) are now available. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of algorithms using these tests to screen pregnant women. METHODS: Observed costs of maternal syphilis screening and treatment using clinic-based RPR and single RSTs in 20 clinics across Peru, Tanzania, and Zambia were used to model the cost-effectiveness of algorithms using combinations of RPR, single, and dual RSTs, and no and mass treatment. Sensitivity analyses determined drivers of key results. RESULTS: Although this analysis found screening using RPR to be relatively cheap, most (>70%) true cases went untreated. Algorithms using single RSTs were the most cost-effective in all observed settings, followed by dual RSTs, which became the most cost-effective if dual RST costs were halved. Single test algorithms dominated most sequential testing algorithms, although sequential algorithms reduced overtreatment. Mass treatment was relatively cheap and effective in the absence of screening supplies, though treated many uninfected women. CONCLUSION: This analysis highlights the advantages of introducing RSTs in three diverse settings. The results should be applicable to other similar settings.
Asunto(s)
Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Tamizaje Masivo/economía , Complicaciones Infecciosas del Embarazo/diagnóstico , Diagnóstico Prenatal/economía , Serodiagnóstico de la Sífilis/economía , Sífilis/diagnóstico , Algoritmos , Femenino , Humanos , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Perú , Embarazo , Complicaciones Infecciosas del Embarazo/tratamiento farmacológico , Diagnóstico Prenatal/métodos , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Sífilis/tratamiento farmacológico , Serodiagnóstico de la Sífilis/métodos , Tanzanía , ZambiaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the impacts of new vaccine introductions on immunization programmes and health systems in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We conducted case studies of seven vaccine introductions in six countries (Cameroon, PCV;Ethiopia, PCV; Guatemala, rotavirus; Kenya, PCV; Mali, Meningitis A; Mali, PCV; Rwanda, HPV). Inter-views were conducted with 261 national, regional and district key informants and questionnaires were completed with staff from 196 health facilities. Routine data from districts and health facilities were gathered on vaccination and antenatal service use. Data collection and analysis were structured around the World Health Organisation health system building blocks. FINDINGS: The new vaccines were viewed positively and seemed to integrate well into existing health systems. The introductions were found to have had no impact on many elements within the building blocks framework. Despite many key informants and facility respondents perceiving that the new vaccine introductions had increased coverage of other vaccines, the routine data showed no change. Positive effects perceived included enhanced credibility of the immunisation programme and strengthened health workers' skills through training. Negative effects reported included an increase in workload and stock outs of the new vaccine, which created a perception in the community that all vaccines were out of stock in a facility. Most effects were found within the vaccination programmes; very few were reported on the broader health systems. Effects were primarily reported to be temporary, around the time of introduction only. CONCLUSION: Although the new vaccine introductions were viewed as intrinsically positive, on the whole there was no evidence that they had any major impact, positive or negative, on the broader health systems.