Cost-effectiveness of self-injected DMPA-SC compared with health-worker-injected DMPA-IM in Senegal.
Cost-effectiveness
DMPA-SC
Economic evaluation
Family planning
Injectable contraception
Self-injection
Journal
Contraception: X
ISSN: 2590-1516
Titre abrégé: Contracept X
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101767748
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
25
04
2019
revised:
26
09
2019
accepted:
29
09
2019
entrez:
5
6
2020
pubmed:
1
1
2019
medline:
1
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of self-injected subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-SC) compared to health-worker-administered intramuscular DMPA (DMPA-IM) in Senegal and to assess how including practice or demonstration injections in client self-injection training affects estimates. We developed a decision-tree model with a 12-month time horizon for a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 injectable contraceptive users in Senegal. We used the model to estimate incremental costs per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. The analysis derived model inputs from DMPA-SC self-injection continuation and costing research studies and peer-reviewed literature. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness from societal and health system perspectives and conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of results. Compared to health-worker-administered DMPA-IM, self-injected DMPA-SC could prevent 1402 additional unintended pregnancies and avert 204 maternal DALYs per year for this hypothetical cohort. From a societal perspective, self-injection costs less than health worker administration regardless of the training approach and is therefore dominant. From the health system perspective, self-injection is dominant compared to health worker administration if a one-page instruction sheet is used and one additional DMPA-SC unit is used for training and is cost-effective at $208 per DALY averted when two additional DMPA-SC units are used. Sensitivity analysis showed estimates were robust. Self-injected DMPA-SC averted more pregnancies and DALYs and cost less from the societal perspective compared to health-worker-administered DMPA-IM and hence is dominant. Using fewer DMPA-SC units for practice or demonstration improves cost-effectiveness of self-injection from the health system perspective. Evidence from Senegal shows that self-injection of DMPA-SC can be dominant or cost-effective from both health system and societal perspectives relative to DMPA-IM from health workers even if women practice injecting or health workers demonstrate with one or two DMPA-SC units. Evidence on whether practice or demonstration is required for client training would be useful.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32494776
doi: 10.1016/j.conx.2019.100012
pii: S2590-1516(19)30011-5
pii: 100012
pmc: PMC7252428
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100012Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors.
Références
Contraception. 2019 Feb;99(2):137-141
pubmed: 30439358
Contraception. 2017 Mar;95(3):306-311
pubmed: 27789309
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 May;6(5):e568-e578
pubmed: 29526707
Value Health. 2016 Dec;19(8):929-935
pubmed: 27987642
Hum Reprod. 2008 Jun;23(6):1338-45
pubmed: 18372257
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 11;10(11):e0142550
pubmed: 26560140
Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2015 Mar;41(1):11-9
pubmed: 25856233
PLoS One. 2011 Mar 28;6(3):e18193
pubmed: 21464895
Contraception. 2012 May;85(5):458-64
pubmed: 22079602
Contraception. 2017 Sep;96(3):203-210
pubmed: 28673645
Contraception. 2018 Nov;98(5):389-395
pubmed: 29859148
Contraception. 2018 Mar;97(3):198-204
pubmed: 29246818
Contraception. 2012 May;85(5):453-7
pubmed: 22079605
Contraception. 2018 Nov;98(5):411-417
pubmed: 30120925
Contraception. 2018 Nov;98(5):383-388
pubmed: 29654751
Contraception. 2014 May;89(5):379-84
pubmed: 24529492
Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 May;17(5):479-500
pubmed: 10977389
Contraception. 2018 Nov;98(5):405-410
pubmed: 29706227
Contraception. 2018 Nov;98(5):396-404
pubmed: 30098940
Contraception. 2014 May;89(5):352-6
pubmed: 24656555
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 May;6(5):e481-e482
pubmed: 29526706