Cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and critical analysis of recent evidence

Martilord Ifeanyichi, Jose Mosso Lara, Phyllis Tenkorang, Meskerem Kebede, Maeve Bognini, Alshaheed Abdelhabeeb, Uchenna Ogechi Amaechina, Faiza Ambreen, Shreeja Sarabu, Taiwo Oladimeji, Ana Toguchi, Rachel Hargest and Rocco Friebel

LSE Research Online Documents on Economics from London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness evidence is a critical tool to support resource allocation decisions. There is growing recognition that the development of benefit packages for surgical care should be guided by such evidence, particularly in resource-constraint settings. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of evidence (Medline, Embase, Global Health, EconLit and grey literature) on the cost-effectiveness of surgery across low-income and middle-income countries published between January 2013 and January 2023. We included studies with minor and major therapeutic surgeries and minimally invasive intraluminal and endovascular interventions. We computed and compared the average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) for different surgical interventions to the respective national gross domestic product per capita to determine cost-effectiveness and to common traditional public health interventions. RESULTS: We identified 87 unique studies out of 20 070 articles screened. Studies spanned 23 countries, with China (n=20), Thailand (n=12), Brazil (n=8) and Iran (n=8) accounting for about 55% of the evidence. Overall, the median ACERs across procedure groups ranged from I$17/disability-adjusted life year (DALY) for laparotomies to I$170 186/DALY for bariatric surgeries. Most of the ACER estimates were classified as cost-effective (89%) or very cost-effective (76%). Low-complexity surgical interventions compared favourably to common public health interventions. CONCLUSION: These findings reinforce the growing body of evidence that investments in surgery are economically smart. There remains however paucity of high-quality evidence that would allow decision-makers to assess the comparative cost-effectiveness of surgery and to determine best buys across a wide range of specialties and interventions. A concerted effort is needed to advance the generation and utilisation of economic evidence in the drive towards scale-up of surgical care across low-income and middle-income countries.

Keywords: REF; fund (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: J1 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 9 pages
Date: 2024-10-03
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-hea and nep-sea
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Published in BMJ Global Health, 3, October, 2024, 9(10). ISSN: 2059-7908

Downloads: (external link)
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/125479/ Open access version. (application/pdf)

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:ehl:lserod:125479

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in LSE Research Online Documents on Economics from London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library LSE Library Portugal Street London, WC2A 2HD, U.K.. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by LSERO Manager ().