↓ Skip to main content

Economic evaluation of emergency obstetric care training: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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 emergency obstetric care training: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12884-017-1586-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aduragbemi Banke-Thomas, Megan Wilson-Jones, Barbara Madaj, Nynke van den Broek

Abstract

Training healthcare providers in Emergency Obstetric Care (EmOC) has been shown to be effective in improving their capacity to provide this critical care package for mothers and babies. However, little is known about the costs and cost-effectiveness of such training. Understanding costs and cost-effectiveness is essential in guaranteeing value-for-money in healthcare spending. This study systematically reviewed the available literature on cost and cost-effectiveness of EmOC trainings. Peer-reviewed and grey literature was searched for relevant papers published after 1990. Studies were included if they described an economic evaluation of EmOC training and the training cost data were available. Two reviewers independently searched, screened, and selected studies that met the inclusion criteria, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Quality of studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement. For comparability, all costs in local currency were converted to International dollar (I$) equivalents using purchasing power parity conversion factors. The cost per training per participant was calculated. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise the available evidence on cost effectiveness. Fourteen studies (five full and nine partial economic evaluations) met the inclusion criteria. All five and two of the nine partial economic evaluations were of high quality. The majority of studies (13/14) were from low- and middle-income countries. Training equipment, per diems and resource person allowance were the most expensive components. Cost of training per person per day ranged from I$33 to I$90 when accommodation was required and from I$5 to I$21 when training was facility-based. Cost-effectiveness of training was assessed in 5 studies with differing measures of effectiveness (knowledge, skills, procedure cost and lives saved) making comparison difficult. Economic evaluations of EmOC training are limited. There is a need to scale-up and standardise processes that capture both cost and effectiveness of training and to agree on suitable economic evaluation models that allow for comparability across settings. PROSPERO_CRD42016041911 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Researcher 9 9%
Lecturer 6 6%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 31 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 36 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 December 2021.
All research outputs
#5,478,370
of 22,707,247 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1,380
of 4,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,660
of 437,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#47
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,707,247 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 437,622 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.