| Title |
Cost-effectiveness analysis of the diarrhea alleviation through zinc and oral rehydration therapy (DAZT) program in rural Gujarat India: an application of the net-benefit regression framework
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12962-017-0070-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Samuel D. Shillcutt, Amnesty E. LeFevre, Christa L. Fischer-Walker, Sunita Taneja, Robert E. Black, Sarmila Mazumder |
| Abstract |
This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the DAZT program for scaling up treatment of acute child diarrhea in Gujarat India using a net-benefit regression framework. Costs were calculated from societal and caregivers' perspectives and effectiveness was assessed in terms of coverage of zinc and both zinc and Oral Rehydration Salt. Regression models were tested in simple linear regression, with a specified set of covariates, and with a specified set of covariates and interaction terms using linear regression with endogenous treatment effects was used as the reference case. The DAZT program was cost-effective with over 95% certainty above $5.50 and $7.50 per appropriately treated child in the unadjusted and adjusted models respectively, with specifications including interaction terms being cost-effective with 85-97% certainty. Findings from this study should be combined with other evidence when considering decisions to scale up programs such as the DAZT program to promote the use of ORS and zinc to treat child diarrhea. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 15 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 June 2017.
All research outputs
#20,427,593
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#401
of 432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,054
of 317,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.