SynthesisBMC health services research2024
Health technology assessment to support health benefits package design: a systematic review of economic evaluation evidence in Zambia.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Supply, demand and use of economic evidence in vaccine policymaking in Africa: A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Health technology assessment capacity to support Zambia's health benefits package reform policy.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth technology assessment uses explicit economic evaluation evidence to support health benefits package design. However, the limited availability of technical expertise, data, and methods has restricted the production of economic evaluation evidence in low- and middle-income countries. Zambia has initiated a roadmap to support its policy of reviewing and implementing its national benefits package. This study characterises economic evaluation evidence to support this process's evidence mapping, synthesis, and appraisal stages.
methodsThis systematic review applies deductive analysis and the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses. Four databases were searched to identify studies from 1993 that coincided with Zambia's health benefits package reform.
resultsA total of 61 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies were first authored by nonlocal authors, and the number of local-based authors in each study was low. Almost all funding for economic evaluation research was not local, and only a few studies sought local ethical clearance to conduct research. Infectious diseases were the highest disease control priority for the studies, with HIV research having the highest output. Most of the studies were cost-effectiveness studies that utilised trial-based data and a combination of program, published, and unpublished data for analysis. The studies generally utilised direct cost and applied the ingredient-based costing approach. Natural units were predominantly used for outcomes alongside DALYs. Most studies reported using a 3% discount rate for both costs and outcomes, with only a few reporting methods for sensitivity analysis.
conclusionEconomic evaluation evidence in Zambia has increased, revealing limited local research leadership, methodological inconsistencies, and a focus on infectious diseases. These findings are crucial for revising Zambia's benefits package and may guide researchers and decision-makers in improving the transparency and quality of future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.