↓ Skip to main content

Cost, cost-consequence and cost-effectiveness evaluation of a practice change intervention to increase routine provision of antenatal care addressing maternal alcohol consumption

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, February 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost, cost-consequence and cost-effectiveness evaluation of a practice change intervention to increase routine provision of antenatal care addressing maternal alcohol consumption
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2022
DOI 10.1186/s13012-021-01180-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zoe Szewczyk, Penny Reeves, Melanie Kingsland, Emma Doherty, Elizabeth Elliott, Luke Wolfenden, Tracey W. Tsang, Adrian Dunlop, Andrew Searles, John Wiggers

Abstract

Implementation of antenatal clinical guideline recommendations for addressing maternal alcohol consumption is sub-optimal. There is a complete absence of evidence of the cost and cost-effectiveness of delivering practice change interventions addressing maternal alcohol consumption amongst women accessing maternity services. The study sought to determine the cost, cost-consequence and cost-effectiveness of developing and delivering a multi-strategy practice change intervention in three sectors of a health district in New South Wales, Australia. The trial-based economic analyses compared the costs and outcomes of the intervention to usual care over the 35-month period of the stepped-wedge trial. A health service provider perspective was selected to focus on the cost of delivering the practice change intervention, rather than the cost of delivering antenatal care itself. All costs are reported in Australian dollars ($AUD, 2019). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the effect of variation in intervention effect and costs. The total cost of delivering the practice change intervention across all three sectors was $367,646, of which $40,871 (11%) were development costs and $326,774 (89%) were delivery costs. Labour costs comprised 70% of the total intervention delivery cost. A single practice change strategy, 'educational meetings and educational materials' contributed 65% of the delivery cost. Based on the trial's primary efficacy outcome, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio was calculated to be $32,570 (95% CI: $32,566-$36,340) per percent increase in receipt of guideline recommended care. Based on the number of women attending the maternity services during the trial period, the average incremental cost per woman who received all guideline elements was $591 (Range: $329 - $940) . The average cost of the intervention per eligible clinician was $993 (Range: $640-$1928). The intervention was more effective than usual care, at an increased cost. Healthcare funders' willingness to pay for this incremental effect is unknown. However, the strategic investment in systems change is expected to improve the efficiency of the practice change intervention over time. Given the positive trial findings, further research and monitoring is required to assess the sustainability of intervention effectiveness and whether economies of scale, or reduced costs of intervention delivery can be achieved without impact on outcomes. The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, No. ACTRN12617000882325 (date registered: 16/06/2017).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Researcher 2 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 22 59%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Unspecified 1 3%
Philosophy 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 24 65%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2022.
All research outputs
#4,301,645
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#792
of 1,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,490
of 521,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#18
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 521,097 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.