↓ Skip to main content

Costs to Health Services and the Patient of Treating Tuberculosis: A Systematic Literature Review

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
140 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
360 Mendeley
Title
Costs to Health Services and the Patient of Treating Tuberculosis: A Systematic Literature Review
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40273-015-0279-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoko V. Laurence, Ulla K. Griffiths, Anna Vassall

Abstract

Novel tuberculosis (TB) drugs and the need to treat drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) are likely to bring about substantial transformations in TB treatment in coming years. An evidence base for cost and cost-effectiveness analyses of these developments is needed. Our objective was to perform a review of papers assessing provider-incurred as well as patient-incurred costs of treating both drug-susceptible (DS) and multidrug-resistant (MDR)-TB. Five databases (EMBASE, Medline, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Services Literature) were searched for cost and economic evaluation full-text papers containing primary DS-TB and MDR-TB treatment cost data published in peer-reviewed journals between January 1990 and February 2015. No language restrictions were set. The search terms were a combination of 'tuberculosis', 'multidrug-resistant tuberculosis', 'cost', and 'treatment'. In the selected papers, study methods and characteristics, quality indicators and costs were extracted into summary tables according to pre-defined criteria. Results were analysed according to country income groups and for provider costs, patient costs and productivity losses. All values were converted to $US, year 2014 values, so that studies could be compared. We selected 71 treatment cost papers on DS-TB only, ten papers on MDR-TB only and nine papers that included both DS-TB and MDR-TB. These papers provided evidence on the costs of treating DS-TB and MDR-TB in 50 and 16 countries, respectively. In 31 % of the papers, only provider costs were included; 26 % included only patient-incurred costs, and the remaining 43 % estimated costs incurred by both. From the provider perspective, mean DS-TB treatment costs per patient were US$14,659 in high-income countries (HICs), US$840 in upper middle-income countries (UMICs), US$273 in lower middle-income (LMICs), and US$258 in low-income countries (LICs), showing a strong positive correlation. The respective costs for treating MDR-TB were US$83,365, US$5284, US$6313 and US$1218. Costs incurred by patients when seeking treatment for DS-TB accounted for an additional 3 % of the provider costs in HICs. A greater burden was seen in the other income groups, increasing the costs of DS-TB treatment by 72 % in UMICs, 60 % in LICs and 31 % in LMICs. When provider costs, patient costs and productivity losses were combined, productivity losses accounted for 16 % in HICs, 29 % in UMICs, 40 % in LMICs and 38 % in LICs. Cost data for MDR-TB treatment are limited, and the variation in delivery mechanisms, as well as the rapidly evolving diagnosis and treatment regimens, means that it is essential to increase the number of studies assessing the cost from both provider and patient perspectives. There is substantial evidence available on the costs of DS-TB treatment from all regions of the world. The patient-incurred costs illustrate that the financial burden of illness is relatively greater for patients in poorer countries without universal healthcare coverage.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 360 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 352 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 75 21%
Researcher 54 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 9%
Other 23 6%
Student > Bachelor 22 6%
Other 66 18%
Unknown 88 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 90 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 12%
Social Sciences 23 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 21 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 3%
Other 67 19%
Unknown 104 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 21 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,454,475
of 23,743,910 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#74
of 1,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,122
of 265,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#3
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,743,910 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,916 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 265,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.