Cost & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Community Mobilisation Intervention to Reduce Intimate Partner Violence in Kampala, Uganda
BACKGROUND:
Intimate
partner violence (IPV) poses a major public health concern. To date there are
few rigorous economic evaluations of interventions aimed at preventing IPV in
low-income settings. This study provides a cost and cost effectiveness analysis
of SASA!, a community mobilisation intervention to change social norms and
prevent IPV.
METHODS:
An
economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial. Both
financial and economic costs were collected retrospectively from the provider's
perspective to generate total and unit cost estimates over four years of
intervention programming. Univariate sensitivity analysis is conducted to
estimate the impact of uncertainty in cost and outcome measures on results.
RESULTS:
The total
cost of developing the SASA! Activist Kit is estimated as US$138,598. Total
intervention costs over four years are estimated as US$553,252. The annual cost
of supporting 351 activists to conduct SASA! activities was approximately
US$389 per activist and the average cost per person reached in intervention
communities was US$21 over the full course of the intervention, or US$5
annually. The primary trial outcome was past year experience of physical IPV
with an estimated 1201 cases averted (90 % CI: 97-2307 cases averted). The
estimated cost per case of past year IPV averted was US$460.
CONCLUSION:
This
study provides the first economic evaluation of a community mobilisation
intervention aimed at preventing IPV. SASA! unit costs compare favourably with
gender transformative interventions and support services for survivors of IPV.
Below: Tornado diagram showing sensitivity of cost per case of past year physical intimate partner violence averted to key assumptions
- 1London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. christine.michaels-igbokwe@lshtm.ac.uk.
- 2London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
- BMC Public Health. 2016 Feb 29;16(1):196. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-2883-6.
No comments:
Post a Comment