The Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Childbirth Settings: A Systematic Review.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Vanessa Scarf, Habtamu Kasaye, Kate Levett, Emily Callander
{"title":"The Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Childbirth Settings: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Vanessa Scarf, Habtamu Kasaye, Kate Levett, Emily Callander","doi":"10.1007/s40258-025-00957-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To sustain positive progress toward sustainable development goals as envisioned in goal 3 and beyond, safe and affordable care during pregnancy and birth for women, their families, and health facilities and professionals is essential. In this systematic review, we report the best available evidence regarding the cost and cost-effectiveness of birth in various settings, including hospitals, birth centres, and homes for women at low risk of complications from high-, middle-, and low-income countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of cost and economic evaluation papers, following the comprehensive search of online databases, including Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar, and grey literature, using predetermined search strategies. Both partial and full economic evaluation studies were included, and we appraised them using Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI's) critical appraisal checklists for economic evaluation studies. Although we attempted to pool total incremental net benefit, the results were synthesised narratively without a meta-analysis due to the high heterogeneity between primary studies.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>From 2307 identified studies, 11 studies (13 country level records from 11 countries) were included. Both direct and indirect costs of childbirth at home, midwife-led birth units (MLBUs), and hospitals were reported. Ten studies showed that births in MLBUs were less costly than hospital births, while home births were also reported to be less costly than hospital births in seven studies. Regarding cost-effectiveness, in Bangladesh, MLBUs generally showed better outcomes at lower costs than hospital births, while one site had higher costs. In Pakistan and Uganda, MLBUs displayed mixed results, with some being cost-effective and others more costly with poorer outcomes. In the Netherlands, MLBUs were less costly but had poorer outcomes, whereas home births were less costly and more effective. In Belgium, MLBUs were less costly but less effective in reducing caesarean and instrumental births, though they did reduce epidural analgesia use cost-effectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most studies found that births in MLBUs and at home were less costly than births in hospital. There is the potential for these settings to provide a cost-effective option for women through reduced intervention rates and favourable outcomes in high-income countries and could offer birthing options to women in low- and middle-income countries that includes care by skilled maternity practitioners in potentially more affordable settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-025-00957-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To sustain positive progress toward sustainable development goals as envisioned in goal 3 and beyond, safe and affordable care during pregnancy and birth for women, their families, and health facilities and professionals is essential. In this systematic review, we report the best available evidence regarding the cost and cost-effectiveness of birth in various settings, including hospitals, birth centres, and homes for women at low risk of complications from high-, middle-, and low-income countries.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of cost and economic evaluation papers, following the comprehensive search of online databases, including Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar, and grey literature, using predetermined search strategies. Both partial and full economic evaluation studies were included, and we appraised them using Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI's) critical appraisal checklists for economic evaluation studies. Although we attempted to pool total incremental net benefit, the results were synthesised narratively without a meta-analysis due to the high heterogeneity between primary studies.

Findings: From 2307 identified studies, 11 studies (13 country level records from 11 countries) were included. Both direct and indirect costs of childbirth at home, midwife-led birth units (MLBUs), and hospitals were reported. Ten studies showed that births in MLBUs were less costly than hospital births, while home births were also reported to be less costly than hospital births in seven studies. Regarding cost-effectiveness, in Bangladesh, MLBUs generally showed better outcomes at lower costs than hospital births, while one site had higher costs. In Pakistan and Uganda, MLBUs displayed mixed results, with some being cost-effective and others more costly with poorer outcomes. In the Netherlands, MLBUs were less costly but had poorer outcomes, whereas home births were less costly and more effective. In Belgium, MLBUs were less costly but less effective in reducing caesarean and instrumental births, though they did reduce epidural analgesia use cost-effectively.

Conclusions: Most studies found that births in MLBUs and at home were less costly than births in hospital. There is the potential for these settings to provide a cost-effective option for women through reduced intervention rates and favourable outcomes in high-income countries and could offer birthing options to women in low- and middle-income countries that includes care by skilled maternity practitioners in potentially more affordable settings.

分娩环境的成本和成本效益:一项系统综述。
背景:为了在实现目标3及以后所设想的可持续发展目标方面保持积极进展,妇女、其家庭、卫生设施和专业人员在怀孕和分娩期间获得安全和负担得起的护理至关重要。在本系统综述中,我们报告了关于在高、中、低收入国家的医院、分娩中心和低并发症风险妇女家庭等各种环境中分娩的成本和成本效益的最佳现有证据。方法:采用预先确定的检索策略,对Medline、CINAHL、Embase、Scopus和谷歌Scholar等在线数据库和灰色文献进行综合检索,对成本和经济评价论文进行系统综述。包括部分和全部经济评估研究,我们使用乔安娜布里格斯研究所(JBI)的经济评估研究关键评估清单对它们进行评估。尽管我们试图汇总总增量净收益,但由于主要研究之间的高度异质性,结果在没有荟萃分析的情况下进行了叙述性综合。结果:从2307项确定的研究中,纳入了11项研究(来自11个国家的13项国家级记录)。报告了在家中、助产士接生单位和医院分娩的直接和间接费用。10项研究表明,在多家医院分娩的费用低于住院分娩,而在7项研究中,在家分娩的费用也低于住院分娩。在成本效益方面,在孟加拉国,产妇分娩点一般比住院分娩成本更低,结果更好,但有一个分娩点的成本更高。在巴基斯坦和乌干达,MLBUs显示出好坏参半的结果,一些具有成本效益,而另一些成本较高,结果较差。在荷兰,MLBUs成本较低,但效果较差,而在家分娩成本较低,效果更好。在比利时,MLBUs成本较低,但在减少剖腹产和器械分娩方面效果较差,尽管它们确实经济有效地减少了硬膜外镇痛的使用。结论:大多数研究发现,在MLBUs和家中分娩比在医院分娩成本更低。这些环境有可能通过降低高收入国家的干预率和有利的结果,为妇女提供具有成本效益的选择,并可能为低收入和中等收入国家的妇女提供分娩选择,包括在可能更负担得起的环境中由熟练的产科医生护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信