Impact evaluation of a cash-plus programme for children with disabilities in the Xiengkhouang Province in Lao PDR: study protocol for a non-randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: More than 170 countries have implemented disability-targeted social protection programmes, although few have been rigorously evaluated. Consequently, a non-randomised controlled trial is being conducted of a pilot 'cash-plus' programme implemented by UNICEF Laos and the Laos government for children with disabilities in the Xiengkhouang Province in Laos. The intervention combines a regular cash transfer with provision of assistive devices and access for caregivers to a family support programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The non-randomised controlled trial will involve 350 children with disabilities across 3 districts identified by programme implementers as eligible for the programme (intervention arm). Implementers have also identified approximately 180 children with disabilities in neighbouring districts, who would otherwise meet eligibility criteria but do not live in the project areas (control arm). The trial will assess the impact of the programme on child well-being (primary outcome), as well as household poverty, caregiver quality of life and time use (secondary outcomes). Baseline data are being collected May-October 2023, with endline 24 months later. Analysis will be intention to treat. A complementary process evaluation will explore the implementation, acceptability of the programme, challenges and enablers to its delivery and mechanisms of impact. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the National Ethics Committee for Health Research in Laos. Informed consent and assent will be taken by trained data collectors. Data will be collected and stored on a secure, encrypted server and its use will follow a detailed data management plan. Findings will be disseminated in academic journals and in short briefs for policy and programmatic actors, and in online and in-person events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN80603476.

Expansion of non-invasive prenatal screening to the screening of 10 types of chromosomal anomalies: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of the addition of chromosomal anomalies detectable by non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS), in a prenatal screening programme targeting common aneuploidies. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A simulation study was conducted to study the addition of chromosomal anomalies detectable by NIPS (sex chromosome aneuploidies, 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, large deletion/duplication >7 Mb and rare autosomal trisomies) to five basic strategies currently aiming the common trisomies: three strategies currently offered by the public healthcare systems in Canada, whose first-tier test is performed with biochemical markers, and two programmes whose first-tier test consists of NIPS-based methods. OUTCOME MEASURES: The total number of cases of chromosomal anomalies detected and the costs related to the consumption of medical services. RESULTS: The most effective and the most cost-effective option in almost all prenatal screening strategies is the option that includes all targeted additional conditions. In the strategies where NIPS is used as first-tier testing, the cost per additional case detected by adding all possible additional anomalies to a programme that currently targets only common trisomies is $C25 710 (95% CI $C25 489 to $C25 934) for massively parallel shotgun sequencing and $C57 711 (95% CI $C57 141 to $C58 292) for targeted massively parallel sequencing, respectively. The acceptability curves show that at a willingness-to-pay of $C50 000 per one additional case detected, the expansion of NIPS-based methods for the detection of all possible additional conditions has a 90% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: From an economic perspective, in strategies that use NIPS as a first-tier screening test, expanding the programmes to detect any considered chromosomal anomalies other than the three common trisomies would be cost-effective. However, the potential expansion of prenatal screening programmes also requires consideration of societal issues, including ethical ones.

Development of a discrete choice experiment questionnaire to elicit preferences by pregnant women and policymakers for the expansion of non-invasive prenatal screening.

OBJECTIVE: An instrument for measuring intervention preferences applicable to both patients and policymakers would make it possible to better confront the needs of the supply and demand sides of the health care system. This study aimed to develop a discrete choice experiments (DCE) questionnaire to elicit the preferences of patients and policymakers. The instrument was specifically developed to estimate preferences for new conditions to be added to a screening program for fetal chromosomal anomalies. METHODS: A DCE development study was conducted. The methods employed included a literature review, a qualitative study (based on individual semi-structured interviews, consultations, and a focus group discussion) with pregnant women and policymakers, and a pilot project with 33 pregnant women to validate the first version of the instrument and test the feasibility of its administration. RESULTS: An initial list of 10 attributes was built based on a literature review and the qualitative research components of the study. Five attributes were built based on the responses provided by the participants from both groups. Eight attributes were consensually retained. A pilot project performed on 33 pregnant women led to a final instrument containing seven attributes: 'conditions to be screened', 'test performance', 'moment at gestational age to obtain the test result', 'degree of test result certainty to the severity of the disability', 'test sufficiency', 'information provided from test result', and 'cost related to the test'. CONCLUSION: It is possible to reach a consensus on the construction of a DCE instrument intended to be administered to pregnant women and policymakers. However, complete validation of the consensual instrument is limited because there are too few voting members of health technology assessment agencies committees to statistically ascertain the relevance of the attributes and their levels.

Non-invasive prenatal testing for the prenatal screening of sex chromosome aneuploidies: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence on the performance of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for the detection of fetal sex chromosomal imbalances. In this review, we aimed to appraise and synthesize the literature on the performance of NIPT for the prenatal detection of fetal sex chromosome aneuploidies. METHODS: We performed our literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CADTH. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. There were no restrictions on the study population. Meta-analyses were performed with "R" software. Pooled sensitivities and specificities with their 95% CI were estimated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed by a Q test. RESULTS: Based on 11 studies in high prior risk pregnancies, including 116 affected fetuses in aggregate, Massively Parallel Shotgun Sequencing (MPSS) had a sensitivity of 93.9% (95% CI 84.1%, 97.8%) and a specificity of 99.6% (95% CI 98.7%, 99.9%) for the detection of 45,X. Based on four studies in high-risk pregnancies, with 83 affected fetuses in aggregate, Targeted Massively Parallel Sequencing (TMPS) had a sensitivity of 83.2% (95% CI 49.6%, 96.2%) and specificity was 99.8% (95% CI 98.3%, 100%) for the detection of 45,X. In mixed-risk pregnancies, the sensitivity of TMPS for the detection of 45,X was 90.9% (2 studies; 95% CI 70%, 97.7%) and specificity 99.9% (2 studies; 95% CI 99.4%, 100%); MPSS data were not available in such pregnancies. Based on smaller numbers of studies, and small numbers of affected fetuses in either high-risk or mixed-risk pregnancies (using either MPSS or TMPS), the sensitivities and specificities were equal to or greater than 76.2% for 47,XXX, 47,XXY and 47, XYY. The test failures for SCAs were 0.2% (95% CI 0%, 13.6%) for MPSS and 5.6% (95% CI 3.7%, 8.4%) for TMPS. CONCLUSION: High-quality studies are still desirable in order to estimate the performance of NIPT for the detection of sex chromosome imbalances.