Skip to main content

Table 3 Recommendations for collecting and presenting cost results (based on [61])

From: Cost and cost-effectiveness of soil-transmitted helminth treatment programmes: systematic review and research needs

Perspective • The perspective of the analysis (which determines whose costs are included) should be clearly stated and justification provided.
• For STH treatment programmes the costs of accessing treatment are normally negligible and therefore we recommend the use of a service provider’s perspective. However, if other interventions are also used (such as WASH) which may incur patient level costs the use of a societal perspective should be considered.
Output • The results should clearly state the treatment frequency, target age group(s), method(s) of distribution and the reported coverage (stratified by age groups and treatment method).
• For cost-effectiveness studies, the effectiveness metric(s) (such as cost per child treated, cost per health outcome averted) should be clearly stated and justified.
Resource identification • Include the economic value of the time volunteered by teachers/community drug distributors (CDDs) and donated items: their time should be valued as the equivalent to their occupation had they not been volunteering calculated using local pay scales.
• Exclude research costs.
• Include relevant overheads of collaborating organizations (e.g. non-governmental organizations (NGO) contributions).
• Clarify what management capacity is assumed to exist and whether the study is calculating an average cost of a programme or an incremental cost of adding an additional intervention within existing programme.
Resource measurement and valuation • Where appropriate, account for integrated NTD control activities and shared resources between other control programmes, thereby indicating economies of scope.
• For all capital items a discount rate of 3 % should be applied-to be consistent with the rate used by the World Bank [41]. This use of different discount rates (such as country-specific estimates) should be explored in the sensitivity analysis.
Sensitivity analysis • To reflect the uncertainty in measurements a sensitivity analysis should be carried out on the main factors, including: discount rate, useful life of capital items, staff costs, fuel costs, and method used to value volunteers’ time.
• Where it is necessary to estimate a share of resources contributed from other programmes or interventions (particularly in the context of integrated NTD control), the assumptions used should be subjected to sensitivity analysis.
Reporting of results • Cost estimates should be provided in US$ and adjusted for inflation.
• The cost year and exchange rates should be clearly stated.
• Clearly state whether costs are per treatment round or costs per year.
• Clearly state how the drugs were distributed (i.e. through schools by teachers and/or by CDD) and the number treated by each method stratified by age and school enrolment status (i.e. indicate how may school-aged children were treated by the CDD).
• Where possible indicate which costs were fixed and which variable.
• Provide costs stratified by individual programme activities (e.g. programme running costs, community sensitization, training, drug distribution and treatment, monitoring and evaluation).
• Provide costs stratified by resource type (e.g. personal, equipment, supplies, transportation and facilities).
• Report both the per capita total cost per treatment and delivery cost per treatment (as well as drug costs).
• Report the economic cost both with and without the value of donated drugs.
• Report the number treated each round (and coverage).
• When investigating more than one control strategy, details of how the costs/values of different programmatic activates were different should be provided and how shared costs have been attributed.