↓ Skip to main content

Economic evaluation of Community Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) in South Asian and African countries: a study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
256 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 Community Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) in South Asian and African countries: a study protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0266-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Asif R. Khowaja, Craig Mitton, Stirling Bryan, Laura A. Magee, Zulfiqar A. Bhutta, Peter von Dadelszen

Abstract

Globally, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, particularly pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, are the leading cause of maternal and neonatal mortality, and impose substantial burdens on the families of pregnant women, their communities, and healthcare systems. The Community Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) Trial evaluates a package of care applied at both community and primary health centres to reduce maternal and perinatal disabilities and deaths resulting from the failure to identify and manage pre-eclampsia at the community level. Economic evaluation of health interventions can play a pivotal role in priority setting and inform policy decisions for scale-up. At present, there is a paucity of published literature on the methodology of economic evaluation of large, multi-country, community-based interventions in the area of maternal and perinatal health. This study protocol describes the application of methodology for economic evaluation of the CLIP in South Asia and Africa. A mixed-design approach i.e. cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and qualitative thematic analysis will be used alongside the trial to prospectively evaluate the economic impact of CLIP from a societal perspective. Data on health resource utilization, costs, and pregnancy outcomes will be collected through structured questionnaires embedded into the pregnancy surveillance, cross-sectional survey and budgetary reviews. Qualitative data will be collected through focus groups (FGs) with pregnant women, household male-decision makers, care providers, and district level health decision makers. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be calculated for healthcare system and societal perspectives, taking into account the country-specific model inputs (costs and outcome) from the CLIP Trial. Emerging themes from FGs will inform the design of the model, and help to interpret findings of the CEA. The World Health Organization (WHO) strongly recommends cost-effective interventions as a key aspect of achieving Millennium Development Goal (MDG)-5 (i.e. 75 % reduction in maternal mortality from 1990 levels by 2015). To date, most cost-effectiveness studies in this field have focused specifically on the diagnostic and clinical management of pre-eclampsia, yet rarely on community-based interventions in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). This study protocol will be of interest to public health scientists and health economists undertaking community-based trials in the area of maternal and perinatal health, particularly in LMICs. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01911494.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 256 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 250 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 19%
Researcher 30 12%
Student > Bachelor 27 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 9%
Student > Postgraduate 21 8%
Other 47 18%
Unknown 58 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 17%
Social Sciences 22 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 4%
Other 34 13%
Unknown 61 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 September 2015.
All research outputs
#7,126,326
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,188
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,448
of 266,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#36
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 266,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.