RESUMEN
The term 'perspective' in the context of economic evaluations and costing studies in healthcare refers to the viewpoint that an analyst has adopted to define the types of costs and outcomes to consider in their studies. However, there are currently notable variations in terms of methodological recommendations, definitions, and applications of different perspectives, depending on the objective or intended user of the study. This can make it a complex area for stakeholders when interpreting these studies. Consequently, there is a need for a comprehensive overview regarding the different types of perspectives employed in such analyses, along with the corresponding implications of their use. This is particularly important, in the context of low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), where practical guidelines may be less well-established and infrastructure for conducting economic evaluations may be more limited. This article addresses this gap by summarising the main types of perspectives commonly found in the literature to a broad audience (namely the patient, payer, health care providers, healthcare sector, health system, and societal perspectives), providing their most established definitions and outlining the corresponding implications of their uses in health economic studies, with examples particularly from LMIC settings. We then discuss important considerations when selecting the perspective and present key arguments to consider when deciding whether the societal perspective should be used. We conclude that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to what perspective should be used and the perspective chosen will be influenced by the context, policymakers'/stakeholders' viewpoints, resource/data availability, and intended use of the analysis. Moving forward, considering the ongoing issues regarding the variation in terminology and practice in this area, we urge that more standardised definitions of the different perspectives and the boundaries between them are further developed to support future studies and guidelines, as well as to improve the interpretation and comparison of health economic evidence.
RESUMEN
Objective To evaluate a project that integrated essential primary health-care services into the oral polio vaccine programme in hard-toreach, underserved communities in northern Nigeria.Methods In 2013, Nigeria's polio emergency operation centre adopted a new approach to rapidly raise polio immunity and reduce newborn, child and maternal morbidity and mortality. We identified, trained and equipped eighty-four mobile health teams to provide free vaccination and primary-care services in 3176 hard-to-reach settlements. We conducted cross-sectional surveys of women of childbearing age in households with children younger than 5 years, in 317 randomly selected settlements, pre- and post-intervention (March 2014 and November 2015, respectively). Findings From June 2014 to September 2015 mobile health teams delivered 2 979 408 doses of oral polio vaccine and dewormed 1 562 640 children younger than 5 years old; performed 676 678 antenatal consultations and treated 1 682 671 illnesses in women and children, including pneumonia, diarrhoea and malaria. The baseline survey found that 758 (19.6%) of 3872 children younger than5 years had routine immunization cards and 690/3872 (17.8%) were fully immunized for their age. The endline survey found 1757/3575 children (49.1%) with routine immunization cards and 1750 (49.0%) fully immunized. Children vaccinated with 3 or more doses of oral polio vaccine increased from 2133 (55.1%) to 2666 (74.6%). Households' use of mobile health services in the previous 6 months increased from 509/1472 (34.6%) to 2060/2426(84.9%). Conclusion Integrating routine primary-care services into polio eradication activities in Nigeria resulted in increased coverage for supplemental oral polio vaccine doses and essential maternal, newborn and child health intervention