Benefit-risk analysis of maintaining essential Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health (RMNCH) services against risk of COVID-19 infection.

With the COVID-19 pandemic spreading across the world, its disruptive effect on the provision and utilization of non- COVID related health services have become well-documented. As countries developed mitigation strategies to help continue the delivery of essential health services through the pandemic, they needed to carefully weigh the benefits and risks of pursuing these strategies. In an attempt to assist countries in their mitigation efforts, a Benefit-Risk model was designed to provide guidance on how to compare the health benefits of sustained essential reproductive, maternal, newborn and child (RMNCH) services against the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections incurred by the countries' populations when accessing these services. This article describes how two existing models were combined to create this model, the field-testing process carried out from November 2020 through March 2021 in six countries and the findings. The overall Benefit-Risk Ratio in the 6 countries analyzed was found to be between 13.7 and 79.2, which means that for every 13.7 to 79.2 lives gained due to increased RMNCH service coverage, there was one loss of a life related to COVID-19. In all cases and for all services, the benefit of maintaining essential health services far exceeded the risks associated with additional COVID-19 infections and deaths. This modelling process illustrated how essential health services can continue to operate during a pandemic and how mitigation measures can reduce COVID-19 infections and restore or increase coverage of essential health services. Overall, this Benefit-Risk analysis underscored the importance and value of maintaining coverage of essential health services even during public health emergencies, including the recent COVID-19 pandemic.

Designing and Evaluating Scalable Child Marriage Prevention Programs in Burkina Faso and Tanzania: A Quasi-Experiment and Costing Study.

BACKGROUND: A significant number of girls are married as children, which negatively impacts their health, education, and development. Given the sheer numbers of girls at risk of child marriage globally, the challenge to eliminate the practice is daunting. Programs to prevent child marriage are typically small-scale and overlook the costs and scalability of the intervention. IMPLEMENTATION: This study tested and costed different approaches to preventing child marriage in rural Burkina Faso and Tanzania. The approaches tested were community dialogue, provision of school supplies, provision of a livestock asset, a model including all components, and a control arm. A quasi-experimental design was employed with surveys undertaken at baseline and after 2 years of intervention. We examined the prevalence of child marriage and school attendance controlling for background characteristics and stratified by age group. Programmatic costs were collected prospectively. RESULTS: Among those in the community dialogue arm in Burkina Faso, girls aged 15 to 17 years had two-thirds less risk (risk ratio [RR]=0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.19, 0.60) of being married and girls aged 12 to 14 years had a greater chance of being in school (RR=1.18; 95% CI=1.07,1.29) compared to the control site. In Tanzania, girls aged 12 to 14 years residing in the multicomponent arm had two-thirds less risk of being married (RR=0.33; 95% CI=0.11, 0.99), and girls 15 to 17 in the conditional asset location had half the risk (RR=0.52; 95% CI=0.30, 0.91). All the interventions tested in Tanzania were associated with increased risk of girls 12 to 14 years old being in school, and the educational promotion arm was also associated with a 30% increased risk of girls aged 15 to 17 years attending school (RR=1.3; 95% CI=1.01, 1.67). Costs per beneficiary ranged from US$9 to US$117. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that minimal, low-cost approaches can be effective in delaying child marriage and increasing school attendance. However, community dialogues need to be designed to ensure sufficient quality and intensity of messaging. Program managers should pay attention to the cost, quality, and coverage of interventions, especially considering that child marriage persists in the most hard-to-reach rural areas of many countries.

The impact and cost of scaling up midwifery and obstetrics in 58 low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: To guide achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, we used the Lives Saved Tool to provide a novel simulation of potential maternal, fetal, and newborn lives and costs saved by scaling up midwifery and obstetrics services, including family planning, in 58 low- and middle-income countries. Typical midwifery and obstetrics interventions were scaled to either 60% of the national population (modest coverage) or 99% (universal coverage). FINDINGS: Under even a modest scale-up, midwifery services including family planning reduce maternal, fetal, and neonatal deaths by 34%. Increasing midwifery alone or integrated with obstetrics is more cost-effective than scaling up obstetrics alone; when family planning was included, the midwifery model was almost twice as cost-effective as the obstetrics model, at $2,200 versus $4,200 per death averted. The most effective strategy was the most comprehensive: increasing midwives, obstetricians, and family planning could prevent 69% of total deaths under universal scale-up, yielding a cost per death prevented of just $2,100. Within this analysis, the interventions which midwifery and obstetrics are poised to deliver most effectively are different, with midwifery benefits delivered across the continuum of pre-pregnancy, prenatal, labor and delivery, and postpartum-postnatal care, and obstetrics benefits focused mostly on delivery. Including family planning within each scope of practice reduced the number of likely births, and thus deaths, and increased the cost-effectiveness of the entire package (e.g., a 52% reduction in deaths with midwifery and obstetrics increased to 69% when family planning was added; cost decreased from $4,000 to $2,100 per death averted). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that scaling up midwifery and obstetrics could bring many countries closer to achieving mortality reductions. Midwives alone can achieve remarkable mortality reductions, particularly when they also perform family planning services--the greatest return on investment occurs with the scale-up of midwives and obstetricians together.

Stillbirths: what difference can we make and at what cost?

Worldwide, 2·65 million (uncertainty range 2·08 million to 3·79 million) stillbirths occur yearly, of which 98% occur in countries of low and middle income. Despite the fact that more than 45% of the global burden of stillbirths occur intrapartum, the perception is that little is known about effective interventions, especially those that can be implemented in low-resource settings. We undertook a systematic review of randomised trials and observational studies of interventions which could reduce the burden of stillbirths, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. We identified several interventions with sufficient evidence to recommend implementation in health systems, including periconceptional folic acid supplementation or fortification, prevention of malaria, and improved detection and management of syphilis during pregnancy in endemic areas. Basic and comprehensive emergency obstetric care were identified as key effective interventions to reduce intrapartum stillbirths. Broad-scale implementation of intervention packages across 68 countries listed as priorities in the Countdown to 2015 report could avert up to 45% of stillbirths according to a model generated from the Lives Saved Tool. The overall costs for these interventions are within the general estimates of cost-effective interventions for maternal care, especially in view of the effects on outcomes across maternal, fetal, and neonatal health.

Stillbirths: how can health systems deliver for mothers and babies?

The causes of stillbirths are inseparable from the causes of maternal and neonatal deaths. This report focuses on prevention of stillbirths by scale-up of care for mothers and babies at the health-system level, with consideration for effects and cost. In countries with high mortality rates, emergency obstetric care has the greatest effect on maternal and neonatal deaths, and on stillbirths. Syphilis detection and treatment is of moderate effect but of lower cost and is highly feasible. Advanced antenatal care, including induction for post-term pregnancies, and detection and management of hypertensive disease, fetal growth restriction, and gestational diabetes, will further reduce mortality, but at higher cost. These interventions are best packaged and provided through linked service delivery methods tailored to suit existing health-care systems. If 99% coverage is reached in 68 priority countries by 2015, up to 1·1 million (45%) third-trimester stillbirths, 201 000 (54%) maternal deaths, and 1·4 million (43%) neonatal deaths could be saved per year at an additional total cost of US$10·9 billion or $2·32 per person, which is in the range of $0·96-2·32 for other ingredients-based intervention packages with only recurrent costs.

Scaling up diarrhea prevention and treatment interventions: a Lives Saved Tool analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diarrhea remains a leading cause of mortality among young children in low- and middle-income countries. Although the evidence for individual diarrhea prevention and treatment interventions is solid, the effect a comprehensive scale-up effort would have on diarrhea mortality has not been estimated. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We use the Lives Saved Tool (LiST) to estimate the potential lives saved if two scale-up scenarios for key diarrhea interventions (oral rehydration salts [ORS], zinc, antibiotics for dysentery, rotavirus vaccine, vitamin A supplementation, basic water, sanitation, hygiene, and breastfeeding) were implemented in the 68 high child mortality countries. We also conduct a simple costing exercise to estimate cost per capita and total costs for each scale-up scenario. Under the ambitious (feasible improvement in coverage of all interventions) and universal (assumes near 100% coverage of all interventions) scale-up scenarios, we demonstrate that diarrhea mortality can be reduced by 78% and 92%, respectively. With universal coverage nearly 5 million diarrheal deaths could be averted during the 5-year scale-up period for an additional cost of US$12.5 billion invested across 68 priority countries for individual-level prevention and treatment interventions, and an additional US$84.8 billion would be required for the addition of all water and sanitation interventions. CONCLUSION: Using currently available interventions, we demonstrate that with improved coverage, diarrheal deaths can be drastically reduced. If delivery strategy bottlenecks can be overcome and the international community can collectively deliver on the key strategies outlined in these scenarios, we will be one step closer to achieving success for the United Nations' Millennium Development Goal 4 (MDG4) by 2015.