STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis.
SETTING: Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, and Sri Lanka participated in the study.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Costs were obtained from experts in each country with known costs and published data, with estimation when necessary. A disability-adjusted life-years model was applied with 3% discounting and 10-year length of analysis. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of device cost, professional salaries, annual number of implants, and probability of device failure. Cost-effectiveness was determined with the World Health Organization standard of cost-effectiveness ratio per gross domestic product (CER/GDP) per capita <3.
RESULTS: Deaf education was cost-effective in all countries except Nepal (CER/GDP, 3.59). CI was cost-effective in all countries except Nepal (CER/GDP, 6.38) and Pakistan (CER/GDP, 3.14)-the latter of which reached borderline cost-effectiveness in the sensitivity analysis (minimum, maximum: 2.94, 3.39).
CONCLUSION: Deaf education and CI are largely cost-effective in participating Asian countries. Variation in CI maintenance and education-related costs may contribute to the range of cost-effectiveness ratios observed in this study.
CONCLUSION: Ex-prematurity and the presence of an underlying illness results in escalation of the direct treatment cost of RSV chest infection. Current guidelines for use of passive RSV immunization do not appear to be cost-effective if adopted for Malaysian infants.
METHODS: Data related to awards to UK institutions for pneumonia research from 1997 to 2013 were systematically sourced and categorised by disease area and type of science. Investment was compared to mortality figures in 2010 and 2013 for pneumonia, tuberculosis and influenza. Investment was also compared to publication data.
RESULTS: Of all infectious disease research between 2011 and 2013 (£917.0 million), £28.8 million (3.1%) was for pneumonia. This was an absolute and proportionate increase from previous time periods. Translational pneumonia research (33.3%) received increased funding compared with 1997-2010 where funding was almost entirely preclinical (87.5%, here 30.9%), but high-burden areas such as paediatrics, elderly care and antimicrobial resistance received little investment. Annual investment remains volatile; publication temporal trends show a consistent increase. When comparing investment to global burden with a novel 'investment by mortality observed' metric, tuberculosis (£48.36) and influenza (£484.21) receive relatively more funding than pneumonia (£43.08), despite investment for pneumonia greatly increasing in 2013 compared to 2010 (£7.39). Limitations include a lack of private sector data and the need for careful interpretation of the comparisons with burden, plus categorisation is subjective.
CONCLUSIONS: There has been a welcome increase for pneumonia funding awarded to UK institutions in 2011-2013 compared with 1997-2010, along with increases for more translational research. Published outputs relating to pneumonia rose steadily from 1997 to 2013. Investment relative to mortality for pneumonia has increased, but it remains low compared to other respiratory infections and clear inequities remain. Analyses that measure investments in pneumonia can provide an insight into funding trends and research gaps.
RESEARCH IN CONTEXT: Pneumonia continues to be a high-burden illness around the globe. This paper shows that although research funding is increasing in the UK (between 1997 and 2013), it remains poorly funded compared to other important respiratory infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and influenza. Publications about pneumonia have been steadily increasing over time, indicating continuing academic and clinical interest in the topic. Though global mortality of pneumonia is declining, it should still be an area of high priority for funders, policymakers and researchers.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: Key electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Scopus, Global Health, CinAHL, EconLit and Business Source Premier were searched. We also searched the grey literature, specifically websites of leading organizations supporting health care in LMICs. Only studies using benefit incidence analysis (BIA) and/or financing incidence analysis (FIA) as explicit methodology were included. A total of 512 records were obtained from the various sources. The full texts of 87 references were assessed against the selection criteria and 24 were judged appropriate for inclusion. Twelve of the 24 studies originated from sub-Saharan Africa, nine from the Asia-Pacific region, two from Latin America and one from the Middle East. The evidence points to a pro-rich distribution of total health care benefits and progressive financing in both sub-Saharan Africa and Asia-Pacific. In the majority of cases, the distribution of benefits at the primary health care level favoured the poor while hospital level services benefit the better-off. A few Asian countries, namely Thailand, Malaysia and Sri Lanka, maintained a pro-poor distribution of health care benefits and progressive financing.
CONCLUSION: Studies evaluated in this systematic review indicate that health care financing in LMICs benefits the rich more than the poor but the burden of financing also falls more on the rich. There is some evidence that primary health care is pro-poor suggesting a greater investment in such services and removal of barriers to care can enhance equity. The results overall suggest that there are impediments to making health care more accessible to the poor and this must be addressed if universal health coverage is to be a reality.