State Perinatal Quality Collaborative for Reducing Severe Maternal Morbidity From Hemorrhage: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of California's statewide perinatal quality collaborative for reducing severe maternal morbidity (SMM) from hemorrhage. METHODS: A decision-analytic model using open source software (Amua 0.30) compared outcomes and costs within a simulated cohort of 480,000 births to assess the annual effect in the state of California. Our model captures both the short-term costs and outcomes that surround labor and delivery and long-term effects over a person's remaining lifetime. Previous studies that evaluated the effectiveness of the CMQCC's (California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative) statewide perinatal quality collaborative initiative-reduction of hemorrhage-related SMM by increasing recognition, measurement, and timely response to postpartum hemorrhage-provided estimates of intervention effectiveness. Primary cost data received from select hospitals within the study allowed for the estimation of collaborative costs, with all other model inputs derived from literature. Costs were inflated to 2021 dollars with a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Various sensitivity analyses were performed including one-way, scenario-based, and probabilistic sensitivity (Monte Carlo) analysis. RESULTS: The collaborative was cost effective, exhibiting strong dominance when compared with the baseline or standard of care. In a theoretical cohort of 480,000 births, collaborative implementation added 182 QALYs (0.000379/birth) by averting 913 cases of SMM, 28 emergency hysterectomies, and one maternal mortality. Additionally, it saved $9 million ($17.78/birth) due to averted SMM costs. Although sensitivity analyses across parameter uncertainty ranges provided cases where the intervention was not cost saving, it remained cost effective throughout all analyses. Additionally, scenario-based sensitivity analysis found the intervention cost effective regardless of birth volume and implementation costs. CONCLUSION: California's statewide perinatal quality collaborative initiative to reduce SMM from hemorrhage was cost effective-representing an inexpensive quality-improvement initiative that reduces the incidence of maternal morbidity and mortality, and potentially provides cost savings to the majority of birthing hospitals.

Why do women choose private over public facilities for family planning services? A qualitative study of post-partum women in an informal urban settlement in Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 40% of women in developing countries seek contraceptives services from the private sector. However, the reasons that contraceptive clients choose private or public providers are not well studied. METHODS: We conducted six focus groups discussions and 51 in-depth interviews with postpartum women (n = 61) to explore decision-making about contraceptive use after delivery, including facility choice. RESULTS: When seeking contraceptive services, women in this study preferred private over public facilities due to convenience and timeliness of services. Women avoided public facilities due to long waits and disrespectful providers. Study participants reported, however, that they felt more confident about the technical medical quality in public facilities than in private, and believed that private providers prioritized profit over safe medical practice. Women reported that public facilities offered comprehensive counseling and chose these facilities when they needed contraceptive decision-support. Provision of comprehensive counseling and screening, including side effects counseling and management, determined perception of quality. CONCLUSION: Women believed private providers offered the advantages of convenience, efficiency and privacy, though they did not consistently offer high-quality care. Quality-improvement of contraceptive care at private facilities could include technical standardization and accreditation. Development of support and training for side effect management may be an important intervention to improve perceived quality of care.