@article {Zou:2013:1027-3719:1056,
title = "Incremental cost-effectiveness of improving treatment results among migrant tuberculosis patients in Shanghai",
journal = "The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease",
parent_itemid = "infobike://iuatld/ijtld",
publishercode ="iuatld",
year = "2013",
volume = "17",
number = "8",
publication date ="2013-08-01T00:00:00",
pages = "1056-1064",
itemtype = "ARTICLE",
issn = "1027-3719",
eissn = "1815-7920",
url = "https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iuatld/ijtld/2013/00000017/00000008/art00012",
doi = "doi:10.5588/ijtld.12.0799",
keyword = "tuberculosis, treatment completion, economic evaluation, financial incentives",
author = "Zou, G. and Wei, X. and Witter, S. and Yin, J. and Walley, J. and Liu, S. and Yang, H. and Chen, J. and Tian, G. and Mei, J.",
abstract = "SETTING: Two projects were introduced in October 2007 to improve treatment completion among rural-to-urban migrant tuberculosis (TB) patients in Shanghai. The Communicable Disease Research Consortium (COMDIS) project provided financial incentives to poor patients, whereas the Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) project provided incentives to all patients and increased staff time.OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of these two projects.METHODS: Case study. Costs were assessed from a societal perspective. The primary
measure of effectiveness was the treatment completion rate. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the additional cost of the intervention divided by the additional percentage of patients completing treatment compared to controls.RESULTS: Post intervention, the treatment
completion rates in the COMDIS and Global Fund projects were respectively 89% and 88%, 17% and 16% higher than in the control district (76%). For one additional per cent of patients to complete treatment, the additional cost of the COMDIS intervention was US$1891, 91% lower than that
of the Global Fund intervention (US$21904).CONCLUSION: The intervention that addressed the financial barriers of poor patients was more cost-effective than the comprehensive intervention that provided assistance to both patients and providers. Further study is needed to
understand the process of interventions prior to wider scale-up.",
}