Estimators Used in Multisite Healthcare Costing Studies in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Simulation Study

Abstract

BackgroundIn low- and middle-income countries, multisite costing studies are increasingly used to estimate healthcare program costs. These studies have employed a variety of estimators to summarize sample data and make inferences about overall program costs.ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic review and simulation study to describe these estimation methods and quantify their performance in terms of expected bias and variance.MethodsWe reviewed the published literature through January 2017 to identify multisite costing studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries and extracted data on analytic approaches. To assess estimator performance under realistic conditions, we conducted a simulation study based on 20 empirical cost data sets.ResultsThe most commonly used estimators were the volume-weighted mean and the simple mean, despite theoretical reasons to expect bias in the simple mean. When we tested various estimators in realistic study scenarios, the simple mean exhibited an upward bias ranging from 12% to 113% of the true cost across a range of study sample sizes and data sets. The volume-weighted mean exhibited minimal bias and substantially lower root mean squared error. Further gains were possible using estimators that incorporated auxiliary information on delivery volumes.ConclusionsThe choice of summary estimator in multisite costing studies can significantly influence study findings and, therefore, the economic analyses they inform. Use of the simple mean to summarize the results of multisite costing studies should be considered inappropriate. Our study demonstrates that several alternative better-performing methods are available.

Producing Standardized Country-Level Immunization Delivery Unit Cost Estimates

“…First, the studies we included in the analysis were heterogeneous in terms of the scope of costing, site selection, data collection methods, and the level of detail with which results were reported. This heterogeneity in costing study methods and reporting has been observed by prior reviews [51][52][53][54][55]. We attempted to deal with this by adopting an analytic strategy that allowed for differences in the cost categories and types of costs (i.e., financial vs. economic) reported.…”

Assessing the costs and efficiency of HIV testing and treatment services in rural Malawi: implications for future “test and start” strategies

“…At the same time, these data contribute to the understanding of how to improve planning and allocate existing resources to maximise value for money or efficiency. While large scale, multi-site cost data are generally required to capture the variability in costs and efficiency [ 12 ], information on HIV service costs in sub-Saharan Africa are limited [ 13 ]. Moreover, few analyses exist of how costs might change as the epidemic and corresponding care and treatment strategies evolve.…”

Influenza in the school-aged population in Mexico: burden of disease and cost-effectiveness of vaccination in children

“…We also acknowledge the importance of careful consideration of the method used for performing an economic analysis. While the assumptions used in our study differ from others recently published [51,52], we believe that the assumptions behind our estimates are solid and our bias is somewhat controlled as we cite official public pricing. Finally, we realize that the use of estimated incidence rates reported by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (United States of America) for indirect standardisation of incidence rates for Mexico may not be ideal; however, we thought this was necessary because the SISVEFLU database likely underestimates the number of cases from primary care clinics, lacks the necessary population representation and most type B influenza cases reported in the database do not have lineage analysis (Additional file 1: Supplement 1; Text S1.2).…”