PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

G Hutton

Publications and source records attributed to G Hutton.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Cost-description of a pilot parenteral vaccination campaign against rabies in dogs in N'Djaména, Chad.

In the discussion about policies and strategies for rabies prevention in developing countries, intervention costs arise as a major issue. In a pilot mass vaccination campaign against rabies in N'Djaména, Chad, 3000 dogs were vaccinated. We assessed vaccination coverage and cost, showing the cost per dog vaccinated for the public sector and for society. An extrapolation to city level calculated the approximate cost of vaccinating all 23 600 dogs in N'Djaména. In the pilot mass campaign with 3000 dogs the average cost per dog was 1.69 euro. to the public and the full societal cost was 2.45 euro. If all 23 600 dogs in N'Djaména were vaccinated, the average cost would fall to 1.16 euro to the public and 1.93 euro to society. Private sector costs account for 31% of the cost to vaccinate 3000 dogs, and 40% of the cost to vaccinate 23 600 dogs. Mass dog vaccination could be a comparatively cheap and ethical way to both control the disease in animals and prevent human cases and exposure, especially in developing countries. The cost-effectiveness of dog vaccination compared with treating victims of dog bites for prevention of human rabies should be further assessed and documented.

Animals↗
PubMed2004

Costs attributable to AIDS at household level in Chad.

This paper assesses the economic costs of AIDS at the household level in Chad, one of the poorest countries in the world. One hundred and ninety-three AIDS patients living in four different regions were found by case identification at hospital level and through community based organizations providing psycho-social relief. They were matched by age, sex, professional category and zone of residence with controls. Costs were evaluated through a standard questionnaire. Costs at household level attributable to AIDS up to death were US$836 per case. Costs related to productivity losses made up 28% of total costs. More than half of total costs (56%) were health care related expenditures and funeral costs contributed 16%. AIDS cases relied more often on borrowing and the selling of household assets than controls for treatment. Household expenditures of AIDS cases were much higher than control households mainly due to health related expenditure. The response of concerned families to HIV/AIDS implies high costs and for most households, especially in low-income settings, the consequences of AIDS are devastating. Innovative strategies on how best to assist households are thus requested and may include the strengthening of care and treatment services being offered to AIDS cases.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMed2001

WHO antenatal care randomised trial for the evaluation of a new model of routine antenatal care.

BACKGROUND: We undertook a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared the standard model of antenatal care with a new model that emphasises actions known to be effective in improving maternal or neonatal outcomes and has fewer clinic visits. METHODS: Clinics in Argentina, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Thailand were randomly allocated to provide either the new model (27 clinics) or the standard model currently in use (26 clinics). All women presenting for antenatal care at these clinics over an average of 18 months were enrolled. Women enrolled in clinics offering the new model were classified on the basis of history of obstetric and clinical conditions. Those who did not require further specific assessment or treatment were offered the basic component of the new model, and those deemed at higher risk received the usual care for their conditions; however, all were included in the new-model group for the analyses, which were by intention to treat. The primary outcomes were low birthweight (<2500 g), pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, severe postpartum anaemia (<90 g/L haemoglobin), and treated urinary-tract infection. There was an assessment of quality of care and an economic evaluation. FINDINGS: Women attending clinics assigned the new model (n=12568) had a median of five visits compared with eight within the standard model (n=11958). More women in the new model than in the standard model were referred to higher levels of care (13.4% vs 7.3%), but rates of hospital admission, diagnosis, and length of stay were similar. The groups had similar rates of low birthweight (new model 7.68% vs standard model 7.14%; stratified rate difference 0.96 [95% CI -0.01 to 1.92]), postpartum anaemia (7.59% vs 8.67%; 0.32), and urinary-tract infection (5.95% vs 7.41%; -0.42 [-1.65 to 0.80]). For pre-eclampsia/eclampsia the rate was slightly higher in the new model (1.69% vs 1.38%; 0.21 [-0.25 to 0.67]). Adjustment by several confounding variables did not modify this pattern. There were negligible differences between groups for several secondary outcomes. Women and providers in both groups were, in general, satisfied with the care received, although some women assigned the new model expressed concern about the timing of visits. There was no cost increase, and in some settings the new model decreased cost. INTERPRETATIONS: Provision of routine antenatal care by the new model seems not to affect maternal and perinatal outcomes. It could be implemented without major resistance from women and providers and may reduce cost.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Methods for economic evaluation alongside a multicentre trial in developing countries: a case study from the WHO Antenatal Care Randomised Controlled Trial.

The WHO is testing a new rationalised programme of antenatal care in a multicentre randomised trial. The motivation for this trial arose from the current uncertainty about the effectiveness of different approaches to provision of routine antenatal care. Decision makers also lack information about the costs of providing routine antenatal care and the cost-effectiveness of one programme over another. Such information will be needed before the final choice of programme can be made. The WHO trial provides an ideal opportunity to estimate and compare the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of the new programme in four countries (Argentina, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Thailand). A separate economic component has been organised to measure the costs of antenatal care. Methods for cost identification and measurement, and methods for economic analysis in the context of an international study are based on current recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations alongside trials. However, several aspects require further development. In particular, this includes defining standard methods for costing in different countries; measuring women's costs of access to care; and making comparisons across international settings. The economic evaluation will also inform similar multicentre international trials and investigate issues of generalisability beyond trial settings.

Argentina↗