↓ Skip to main content

Economic evaluation of participatory learning and action with women’s groups facilitated by Accredited Social Health Activists to improve birth outcomes in rural eastern India

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Economic evaluation of participatory learning and action with women’s groups facilitated by Accredited Social Health Activists to improve birth outcomes in rural eastern India
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12962-017-0064-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli, Prasanta Kishore Tripathy, Nirmala Nair, Rajkumar Gope, Shibanand Rath, Audrey Prost

Abstract

Neonatal mortality remains unacceptably high in many low and middle-income countries, including India. A community mobilisation intervention using participatory learning and action with women's groups facilitated by Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs) was conducted to improve maternal and newborn health. The intervention was evaluated through a cluster-randomised controlled trial conducted in Jharkhand and Odisha, eastern India. This aims to assess the cost-effectiveness this intervention. Costs were estimated from the provider's perspective and calculated separately for the women's group intervention and for activities to strengthen Village Health Sanitation and Nutrition Committees (VHNSC) conducted in all trial areas. Costs were estimated at 2017 prices and converted to US dollar (USD). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with respect to a do-nothing alternative and compared with the WHO thresholds for cost-effective interventions. ICERs were calculated for cases of neonatal mortality and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. The incremental cost of the intervention was USD 83 per averted DALY (USD 99 inclusive of VHSNC strengthening costs), and the incremental cost per newborn death averted was USD 2545 (USD 3046 inclusive of VHSNC strengthening costs). The intervention was highly cost-effective according to WHO threshold, as the cost per life year saved or DALY averted was less than India's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. The robustness of the findings to assumptions was tested using a series of one-way sensitivity analyses. The sensitivity analysis does not change the conclusion that the intervention is highly cost-effective. Participatory learning and action with women's groups facilitated by ASHAs was highly cost-effective to reduce neonatal mortality in rural settings with low literacy levels and high neonatal mortality rates. This approach could effectively complement facility-based care in India and can be scaled up in comparable high mortality settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 33 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 16%
Social Sciences 13 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 7%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 38 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,451,618
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#308
of 430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,610
of 309,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 309,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.