Cost-effectiveness of screening methods for urinary schistosomiasis in a school-based control programme in Ibadan, Nigeria

Akinola Ayoola Fatiregun, Kayode O. Osungbade and Aderonke E. Olumide

Health Policy, 2009, vol. 89, issue 1, 72-77

Abstract: Objective To carry out a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of screening methods for urinary schistosomiasis; terminal haematuria, unqualified haematuria, dysuria, visual urine examination and chemical reagent strip technique, in a school-based control programme.Design Estimation of costs and determination of cost-effect ratios of the screening methods applied in a school-based screening and treatment programme, from the perspective of a programme manager.Setting A junior secondary school in Ibadan, Nigeria.Main outcome measures Cost per number of cases correctly diagnosed.Results Unqualified haematuria was found to be the most cost-effective method costing N51.06 (US$ 2.16) to diagnose a case correctly, followed by terminal haematuria N58.91 (US$ 2.50) and dysuria N84.24 (US$ 3.57). Despite the relatively high input costs of chemical reagent strip technique over visual urine examination (N22.12 (US$ 0.94) per student vs. N6.44 (US$ 0.27) per student), it was found to be more cost effective costing N304.56 (US$ 12.91) to diagnose a case correctly than visual examination of urine cost of N317.58 (US$ 13.46) per correct case diagnosed.Conclusion From the viewpoint of a programme manager, interview method of screening by asking for blood in the urine remains the most efficient means of screening for urinary schistosomiasis in school-based control programmes in our environment.

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness; Schistosomiasis; Screening; methods; School-based; programme (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2009
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(08)00124-3
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:89:y:2009:i:1:p:72-77

Access Statistics for this article

Health Policy is currently edited by Katrien Kesteloot, Mia Defever and Irina Cleemput

More articles in Health Policy from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu () and ().