Literature DB >> 3127641

A cost-effectiveness analysis of strategies to reduce infant mortality.

T Joyce1, H Corman, M Grossman.   

Abstract

This study compares the cost effectiveness of various health inputs and government programs in reducing race-specific neonatal mortality or death in the first 27 days of life. Approximately two thirds of all infant deaths occur within this period. The programs and inputs at issue are teenage family planning use; the supplemental food program for women, infants, and children (WIC); use of community health centers and maternal and infant care projects; abortion; prenatal care; and neonatal intensive care. Using an economic model of the family as the analytic framework, effectiveness is determined by using ordinary least squares and two-stage least squares to estimate infant health production functions across large counties in the United States in 1977. Estimates of costs are from a number of published sources. We find the early initiation of prenatal care to be the most cost-effective means of reducing the neonatal mortality rate for blacks and whites. Moreover, blacks benefit more per dollar of input use than whites. Neonatal intensive care, although the most effective means of reducing neonatal mortality rates, is one of the least cost-effective strategies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Abortion, Induced; Americas; Birth Weight; Blacks; Cost Benefit Analysis; Cost Effectiveness; Demographic Factors; Developed Countries; Developing Countries; Development Planning; Ethnic Groups; Evaluation; Evaluation Indexes; Evaluation Methodology; Family Planning; Government Sponsored Programs; Infant Mortality; Low Birth Weight; Maternal Health Services; Maternal Nutrition; Mortality; Neonatal Mortality; North America; Northern America; Nutrition; Population; Population Dynamics; Prenatal Care; Quantitative Evaluation; United States; Whites

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3127641     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-198804000-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  8 in total

Review 1.  What new knowledge would help policymakers better balance investments for optimal health outcomes?

Authors:  David Kindig; Patricia Day; Daniel M Fox; Mark Gibson; James Knickman; Jonathan Lomas; Gregory Stoddart
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 2.  Choosing quality of care measures based on the expected impact of improved care on health.

Authors:  A L Siu; E A McGlynn; H Morgenstern; M H Beers; D M Carlisle; E B Keeler; J Beloff; K Curtin; J Leaning; B C Perry
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Dangerous economics: resource allocation in the NICU.

Authors:  J A Zupancic
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-03-15       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  The effect of WIC and Medicaid on infant mortality in the United States.

Authors:  N Moss; K Carver
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Weighing costs and benefits of adequate prenatal care for 12,023 births in Missouri's Medicaid program, 1988.

Authors:  W F Schramm
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1992 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.792

6.  [Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of pravastatin in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in patients with average cholesterol levels. An analysis for Germany based on the CARE study].

Authors:  T D Szucs; G Guggenberger; K Berger; W März; J R Schäfer
Journal:  Herz       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 1.443

7.  What is Behind the Rising Rates of Preterm Birth in the United States?

Authors:  John D Lantos; Diane S Lauderdale
Journal:  Rambam Maimonides Med J       Date:  2011-10-31

8.  Why Who Marries Whom Matters: Effects of Educational Assortative Mating on Infant Health in the U.S. 1969-1994.

Authors:  Emily Rauscher
Journal:  Soc Forces       Date:  2019-05-24
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.