Cost of childhood cancer treatment in Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Despite the recent interest in expanding pediatric oncology units in Ethiopia, reflected in the National Childhood and Adolescent Cancer Control Plan (NCACCP), little is known about the cost of running a pediatric oncology unit and treating childhood cancers. METHODS: We collected historical cost data and quantity of services provided for the pediatric oncology unit and all other departments in Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital (TASH) from 8 July 2018 to 7 July 2019, using a provider perspective and mixed (top-down and bottom-up) costing approaches. Direct costs (human resources, drugs, supplies, medical equipment) of the pediatric oncology unit, costs at other relevant clinical departments, and overhead cost share are summed up to estimate the total annual cost of running the unit. Further, unit costs were estimated at specific childhood cancer levels. RESULTS: The estimated annual total cost of running a pediatric oncology unit was USD 776,060 (equivalent to USD 577 per treated child). The cost of running a pediatric oncology unit per treated child ranged from USD 469 to USD 1,085, on the scenario-based sensitivity analysis. Drugs and supplies, and human resources accounted for 33% and 27% of the total cost, respectively. Outpatient department and inpatient department shared 37% and 63% of the cost, respectively. For the pediatric oncology unit, the cost per OPD visit, cost per bed day, and cost per episode of hospital admission were USD 36.9, 39.9, and 373.3, respectively. The annual cost per treated child ranged from USD 322 to USD 1,313 for the specific childhood cancers. CONCLUSION: Running a pediatric oncology unit in Ethiopia is likely to be affordable. Further analysis of cost effectiveness, equity, and financial risk protection impacts of investing in childhood cancer programs could better inform the prioritization of childhood cancer control interventions in the Ethiopia Essential Health Service Package.

Cost-effectiveness of running a paediatric oncology unit in Ethiopia.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of running a paediatric oncology unit in Ethiopia to inform the revision of the Ethiopia Essential Health Service Package (EEHSP), which ranks the treatment of childhood cancers at a low and medium priority. METHODS: We built a decision analytical model-a decision tree-to estimate the cost-effectiveness of running a paediatric oncology unit compared with a do-nothing scenario (no paediatric oncology care) from a healthcare provider perspective. We used the recently (2018-2019) conducted costing estimate for running the paediatric oncology unit at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital (TASH) and employed a mixed costing approach (top-down and bottom-up). We used data on health outcomes from other studies in similar settings to estimate the disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted of running a paediatric oncology unit compared with a do-nothing scenario over a lifetime horizon. Both costs and effects were discounted (3%) to the present value. The primary outcome was incremental cost in US dollars (USDs) per DALY averted, and we used a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 50% of the Ethiopian gross domestic product per capita (USD 477 in 2019). Uncertainty was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The incremental cost and DALYs averted per child treated in the paediatric oncology unit at TASH were USD 876 and 2.4, respectively, compared with no paediatric oncology care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of running a paediatric oncology unit was USD 361 per DALY averted, and it was cost-effective in 90% of 100 000 Monte Carlo iterations at a USD 477 WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of paediatric cancer services using a specialised oncology unit is most likely cost-effective in Ethiopia, at least for easily treatable cancer types in centres with minimal to moderate capability. We recommend reassessing the priority-level decision of childhood cancer treatment in the current EEHSP.

The magnitude and perceived reasons for childhood cancer treatment abandonment in Ethiopia: from health care providers' perspective.

BACKGROUND: Treatment abandonment is one of major reasons for childhood cancer treatment failure and low survival rate in low- and middle-income countries. Ethiopia plans to reduce abandonment rate by 60% (2019-2023), but baseline data and information about the contextual risk factors that influence treatment abandonment are scarce. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted from September 5 to 22, 2021, on the three major pediatric oncology centers in Ethiopia. Data on the incidence and reasons for treatment abandonment were obtained from healthcare professionals. We were unable to obtain data about the patients' or guardians' perspective because the information available in the cancer registry was incomplete to contact adequate number of respondents. We used a validated, semi-structured questionnaire developed by the International Society of Pediatric Oncology Abandonment Technical Working Group. We included all (N = 38) health care professionals (physicians, nurses, and social workers) working at these centers who had more than one year of experience in childhood cancer service provision (a universal sampling and 100% response rate). RESULTS: The perceived mean abandonment rate in Ethiopia is 34% (SE 2.5%). The risk of treatment abandonment is dependent on the type of cancer (high for bone sarcoma and brain tumor), the phase of treatment and treatment outcome. The highest risk is during maintenance and treatment failure or relapse for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and during pre- or post-surgical phase for Wilms tumor and bone sarcoma. The major influencing risk factors in Ethiopia includes high cost of care, low economic status, long travel time to treatment centers, long waiting time, belief in the incurability of cancer and poor public awareness about childhood cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The perceived abandonment rate in Ethiopia is high, and the risk of abandonment varies according to the type of cancer, phase of treatment or treatment outcome. Therefore, mitigation strategies to reduce the abandonment rate should include identifying specific risk factors and prioritizing strategies based on their level of influence, effectiveness, feasibility, and affordability.