The Importance of Failure: How Doing Impact Surveys That Fail Saves Trachoma Programs Money.

Trachoma programs use annual antibiotic mass drug administration (MDA) in evaluation units (EUs) that generally encompass 100,000-250,000 people. After one, three, or five MDA rounds, programs undertake impact surveys. Where impact survey prevalence of trachomatous inflammation-follicular (TF) in 1- to 9-year-olds is ≥ 5%, ≥ 1 additional MDA rounds are recommended before resurvey. Impact survey costs, and the proportion of impact surveys returning TF prevalence ≥ 5% (the failure rate or, less pejoratively, the MDA continuation rate), therefore influence the cost of eliminating trachoma. We modeled, for illustrative EU sizes, the financial cost of undertaking MDA with and without conducting impact surveys. As an example, we retrospectively assessed how conducting impact surveys affected costs in the United Republic of Tanzania for 2017-2018. For EUs containing 100,000 people, the median (interquartile range) cost of continuing MDA without doing impact surveys is USD 28,957 (17,581-36,197) per EU per year, whereas continuing MDA solely where indicated by impact survey results costs USD 17,564 (12,158-21,694). If the mean EU population is 100,000, then continuing MDA without impact surveys becomes advantageous in financial cost terms only when the continuation rate exceeds 71%. For the United Republic of Tanzania in 2017-2018, doing impact surveys saved enough money to provide MDA for > 1,000,000 people. Although trachoma impact surveys have a nontrivial cost, they generally save money, providing EUs have > 50,000 inhabitants, the continuation rate is not excessive, and they generate reliable data. If all EUs pass their impact surveys, then we have waited too long to do them.

The cost of mapping trachoma: Data from the Global Trachoma Mapping Project.

BACKGROUND: The Global Trachoma Mapping Project (GTMP) was implemented with the aim of completing the baseline map of trachoma globally. Over 2.6 million people were examined in 1,546 districts across 29 countries between December 2012 and January 2016. The aim of the analysis was to estimate the unit cost and to identify the key cost drivers of trachoma prevalence surveys conducted as part of GTMP. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In-country and global support costs were obtained using GTMP financial records. In-country expenditure was analysed for 1,164 districts across 17 countries. The mean survey cost was $13,113 per district [median: $11,675; IQR = $8,365-$14,618], $17,566 per evaluation unit [median: $15,839; IQR = $10,773-$19,915], $692 per cluster [median: $625; IQR = $452-$847] and $6.0 per person screened [median: $4.9; IQR = $3.7-$7.9]. Survey unit costs varied substantially across settings, and were driven by parameters such as geographic location, demographic characteristics, seasonal effects, and local operational constraints. Analysis by activities showed that fieldwork constituted the largest share of in-country survey costs (74%), followed by training of survey teams (11%). The main drivers of in-country survey costs were personnel (49%) and transportation (44%). Global support expenditure for all surveyed districts amounted to $5.1m, which included grant management, epidemiological support, and data stewardship. CONCLUSION: This study provides the most extensive analysis of the cost of conducting trachoma prevalence surveys to date. The findings can aid planning and budgeting for future trachoma surveys required to measure the impact of trachoma elimination activities. Furthermore, the results of this study can also be used as a cost basis for other disease mapping programmes, where disease or context-specific survey cost data are not available.