ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Economic evaluations of community health worker programs focussed on neglected tropical diseases in low- and middle-income countries (2015-2024): A scoping literature review.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are a diverse group of more than twenty diseases caused by parasitic, bacterial, and viral infections, affecting more than one billion individuals worldwide. Economic evidence can help guide the investment in Community Health Workers (CHWs) who can help expand access to preventive and curative NTD services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A scoping review was conducted across ten databases and grey literature, covering studies published between August 2015 and July 2024. Search terms related to "Community Health Workers" and "Economic Evaluations" were used. Studies were screened via Covidence software based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data on study methodology, costs, and outcomes were extracted, tabulated in Microsoft Excel, and analysed. Of the 29 included scenarios (n = 10 studies), 7 were about community mass drug administration and 22 focused on other topics - such as disease-specific prevention and treatment (e.g., dengue). Across scenarios, the most commonly reported outcomes were cost per service delivered (ranging from $0.13-$5.33) and cost per capita (ranging from $10.24-$21.09). Five scenarios reported on cost-effectiveness, with varied results (40-50% of scenarios were reported as cost effective). One study found that interventions were more likely to be cost-effective when they leveraged integrated care as opposed to vertical approaches. The evidence base for economic evaluations regarding CHW involvement in NTD programs is highly limited. From the 10 studies identified there was no clear conclusion with regards to cost-effectiveness or affordability of CHWs in NTD programs in LMICs. To better understand the critical role CHWs can play in both prevention- and treatment-focused NTD programs, further evidence of the cost-effectiveness and affordability of such interventions is needed.
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.