Dataset Information

Evaluation of community-level interventions to increase early initiation of antenatal care in pregnancy: protocol for the Community REACH study, a cluster randomised controlled trial with integrated process and economic evaluations.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The provision of high-quality maternity services is a priority for reducing inequalities in health outcomes for mothers and infants. Best practice includes women having their initial antenatal appointment within the first trimester of pregnancy in order to provide screening and support for healthy lifestyles, well-being and self-care in pregnancy. Previous research has identified inequalities in access to antenatal care, yet there is little evidence on interventions to improve early initiation of antenatal care. The Community REACH trial will assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of engaging communities in the co-production and delivery of an intervention that addresses this issue. METHODS/DESIGN:The study design is a matched cluster randomised controlled trial with integrated process and economic evaluations. The unit of randomisation is electoral ward. The intervention will be delivered in 10 wards; 10 comparator wards will have normal practice. The primary outcome is the proportion of pregnant women attending their antenatal booking appointment by the 12th completed week of pregnancy. This and a number of secondary outcomes will be assessed for cohorts of women (n = approximately 1450 per arm) who give birth 2-7 and 8-13 months after intervention delivery completion in the included wards, using routinely collected maternity data. Eight hospitals commissioned to provide maternity services in six NHS trusts in north and east London and Essex have been recruited to the study. These trusts will provide anonymised routine data for randomisation and outcomes analysis. The process evaluation will examine intervention implementation, acceptability, reach and possible causal pathways. The economic evaluation will use a cost-consequences analysis and decision model to evaluate the intervention. Targeted community engagement in the research process was a priority. DISCUSSION:Community REACH aims to increase early initiation of antenatal care using an intervention that is co-produced and delivered by local communities. This pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, with integrated process and economic evaluation, aims to rigorously assess the effectiveness of this public health intervention, which is particularly complex due to the required combination of standardisation with local flexibility. It will also answer questions about scalability and generalisability. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN registry: registration number 63066975 . Registered on 18 August 2015.

SUBMITTER: Sawtell M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5838929 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background As a core component of harm-reduction strategies to address the opioid crisis, several countries have instituted publicly funded programs to distribute naloxone for lay administration in the community. The effectiveness in reducing mortality from opioid overdose has been demonstrated in multiple systematic reviews. However, the economic impact of community naloxone distribution programs is not fully understood. Objectives Our objective was to conduct a review of economic evaluations of community distribution of naloxone, assessing for quality and applicability to diverse contexts and settings. Data Sources The search strategy was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, and EconLit databases. Study Eligibility Criteria and Interventions Search criteria were developed based on two themes: (1) papers involving naloxone or narcan and (2) any form of economic evaluation. A focused search of the grey literature was also conducted. Studies exploring the intervention of community distribution of naloxone were selected. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods Data extraction was done using the British Medical Journal guidelines for economic submissions, assigning quality levels based on the impact of the missing or unclear components on the strength of the conclusions. Results A total of nine articles matched our inclusion criteria: one cost-effectiveness analysis, eight cost-utility analyses, and one cost-benefit analysis. Overall, the quality of the studies was good (six of high quality, two of moderate quality, and one of low quality). All studies concluded that community distribution of naloxone was cost effective, with an incremental cost-utility ratio range of $US111–58,738 (year 2020 values) per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Limitations Our search strategy was developed iteratively, rather than following an a priori design. Additionally, our search was limited to English terms. Conclusions and Implications of Key Findings Based on this review, community distribution of naloxone is a worthwhile investment and should be considered by other countries dealing with the opioid epidemic. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-021-00309-z.

Project description:Background: Patients over 65 years of age taking multiple medications face several risks, and pharmaceutical interventions can be useful to improve quality of care and reduce those risks. However, there is still no consensus on the effectiveness of these interventions aimed at promoting changes in clinical, epidemiological, economic, and humanistic outcomes for various service delivery, organizational, financial, and implementation-based interventions. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews was to summarize evidence on the effectiveness of community-level pharmaceutical interventions to reduce the risks associated with polypharmacy in the population over 65 years of age. Method: This overview used a previously described protocol to search for systematic review articles, with and without meta-analysis, and economic evaluations, without any language or time restrictions, including articles published up to May 2018. The following databases were searched: the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Health Evidence, Health Systems Evidence, Virtual Health Library, and Google Scholar. The basic search terms used were "elderly," "polypharmacy," and "pharmaceutical interventions." The findings for outcomes of interest were categorized using a taxonomy for health policies and systems. Equity-related questions were also investigated. The studies were evaluated for methodological quality and produced a narrative synthesis. Results: A total of 642 records were retrieved: 50 from Health Evidence, 197 from Epistemonikos, 194 from Cochrane, 116 from Health Systems Evidence, and 85 from the Virtual Health Library. Of these, 16 articles were selected: 1 overview of systematic reviews, 12 systematic reviews, and 3 economic evaluations. There is evidence of improvement in clinical, epidemiological, humanistic, and economic outcomes for various types of community-level pharmaceutical interventions, but differences in observed outcomes may be due to study designs, primary study sample sizes, risk of bias, difficulty in aggregating data, heterogeneity of indicators and quality of evidence included in the systematic reviews that were assessed. It is necessary to optimize the methodological designs of future primary and secondary studies. Conclusion: Community-level pharmaceutical interventions can improve various clinical, epidemiological, humanistic and economic outcomes and potentially reduce risks associated with polypharmacy in the elderly population.

Project description:ObjectiveTo summarise evidence describing the cost-effectiveness of population-based interventions targeting sodium reduction.MethodsA systematic search of published and grey literature databases and websites was conducted using specified key words. Characteristics of identified economic evaluations were recorded, and included studies were appraised for reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.ResultsTwenty studies met the study inclusion criteria and received a full paper review. Fourteen studies were identified as full economic evaluations in that they included both costs and benefits associated with an intervention measured against a comparator. Most studies were modelling exercises based on scenarios for achieving salt reduction and assumed effects on health outcomes. All 14 studies concluded that their specified intervention(s) targeting reductions in population sodium consumption were cost-effective, and in the majority of cases, were cost saving. Just over half the studies (8/14) were assessed as being of 'excellent' reporting quality, five studies fell into the 'very good' quality category and one into the 'good' category. All of the identified evaluations were based on modelling, whereby inputs for all the key parameters including the effect size were either drawn from published datasets, existing literature or based on expert advice.ConclusionDespite a clear increase in evaluations of salt reduction programs in recent years, this review identified relatively few economic evaluations of population salt reduction interventions. None of the studies were based on actual implementation of intervention(s) and the associated collection of new empirical data. The studies universally showed that population-based salt reduction strategies are likely to be cost effective or cost saving. However, given the reliance on modelling, there is a need for the effectiveness of new interventions to be evaluated in the field using strong study designs and parallel economic evaluations.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The aim of this systematic literature review is to identify and critique full economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people with the purpose of informing the design of future rigorous economic evaluations of such intervention programs. METHODS:A PRISMA compliant search of the literature between 2000 and April 2018 was conducted to identify full economic evaluations of youth focussed interventions for at risk young people. Duplicates were removed and two researchers independently screened the article titles and abstracts according to PICOS criteria for exclusion and inclusion. The remaining full text articles were assessed for eligibility and a quality assessment of the included articles was conducted using the Drummond checklist. RESULTS:The database, grey literature and hand searches located 488 studies of interventions for at risk young people. After preliminary screening of titles and abstracts, 104 studies remained for full text examination and 29 empirical studies containing 32 separate economic evaluations were judged eligible for inclusion in the review. These comprised 13 cost-benefit analyses (41%), 17 cost-effectiveness analyses (53%), one cost-utility analysis (3%) and a social return on investment (3%). Three main methodological challenges were identified: 1. attribution of effects; 2. measuring and valuing outcomes; and 3. identifying relevant costs and consequences. CONCLUSIONS:A cost-benefit analysis would best capture the dynamic nature of a multi-component intervention for high risk young people, incorporating broader intersectoral outcomes and enabling measurement of more domains of risk. Prospective long-term data collection and a strong study design that incorporates a control group contribute to the quality of economic evaluation. Extrapolation of impact into the future is important for this population, in order to account for the time lag in effect of many impacts and benefits arising from youth interventions.

Project description:ObjectiveProcess evaluations (PEs) alongside randomised controlled trials of complex interventions are valuable because they address questions of for whom, how and why interventions had an impact. We synthesised the methods used in PEs of primary care interventions, and their main findings on implementation barriers and facilitators.DesignSystematic review using the UK Medical Research Council guidance for PE as a guide.Data sourcesAcademic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE and Global Health) were searched from 1998 until June 2018.Eligibility criteriaWe included PE alongside randomised controlled trials of primary care interventions which aimed to improve outcomes for patients with non-communicable diseases.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers screened and conducted the data extraction and synthesis, with a third reviewer checking a sample for quality assurance.Results69 studies were included. There was an overall lack of consistency in how PEs were conducted and reported. The main weakness is that only 30 studies were underpinned by a clear intervention theory often facilitated by the use of existing theoretical frameworks. The main strengths were robust sampling strategies, and the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data to understand an intervention's mechanisms. Findings were synthesised into three key themes: (1) a fundamental mismatch between what the intervention was designed to achieve and local needs; (2) the required roles and responsibilities of key actors were often not clearly understood; and (3) the health system context-factors such as governance, financing structures and workforce-if unanticipated could adversely impact implementation.ConclusionGreater consistency is needed in the reporting and the methods of PEs, in particular greater use of theoretical frameworks to inform intervention theory. More emphasis on formative research in designing interventions is needed to align the intervention with the needs of local stakeholders, and to minimise unanticipated consequences due to context-specific barriers.Prospero registration numberCRD42016035572.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough public health guidelines have implications for resource allocation, these issues were not explicitly considered in previous WHO pandemic preparedness and response guidance. In order to ensure a thorough and informed revision of this guidance following the H1N1 2009 pandemic, a systematic review of published and unpublished economic evaluations of preparedness strategies and interventions against influenza pandemics was conducted.MethodsThe search was performed in September 2011 using 10 electronic databases, 2 internet search engines, reference list screening, cited reference searching, and direct communication with relevant authors. Full and partial economic evaluations considering both costs and outcomes were included. Conversely, reviews, editorials, and studies on economic impact or complications were excluded. Studies were selected by 2 independent reviewers.Results44 studies were included. Although most complied with the cost effectiveness guidelines, the quality of evidence was limited. However, the data sources used were of higher quality in economic evaluations conducted after the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Vaccination and drug regimens were varied. Pharmaceutical plus non-pharmaceutical interventions are relatively cost effective in comparison to vaccines and/or antivirals alone. Pharmaceutical interventions vary from cost saving to high cost effectiveness ratios. According to ceiling thresholds (Gross National Income per capita), the reduction of non-essential contacts and the use of pharmaceutical prophylaxis plus the closure of schools are amongst the cost effective strategies for all countries. However, quarantine for household contacts is not cost effective even for low and middle income countries.ConclusionThe available evidence is generally inconclusive regarding the cost effectiveness of preparedness strategies and interventions against influenza pandemics. Studies on their effectiveness and cost effectiveness should be readily implemented in forthcoming events that also involve the developing world. Guidelines for assessing the impact of disease and interventions should be drawn up to facilitate these studies.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of community-level interventions to increase early initiation of antenatal care in pregnancy: protocol for the Community REACH study, a cluster randomised controlled trial with integrated process and economic evaluations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets