Hidden costs: The ethics of cost-effectiveness analyses for health interventions in resource-limited settings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an increasingly appealing tool for evaluating and comparing health-related interventions in resource-limited settings. The goal is to inform decision-makers regarding the health benefits and associated costs of alternative interventions, helping guide allocation of limited resources by prioritising interventions that offer the most health for the least money. Although only one component of a more complex decision-making process, CEAs influence the distribution of health-care resources, directly influencing morbidity and mortality for the world's most vulnerable populations. However, CEA-associated measures are frequently setting-specific valuations, and CEA outcomes may violate ethical principles of equity and distributive justice. We examine the assumptions and analytical tools used in CEAs that may conflict with societal values. We then evaluate contextual features unique to resource-limited settings, including the source of health-state utilities and disability weights, implications of CEA thresholds in light of economic uncertainty, and the role of external donors. Finally, we explore opportunities to help align interpretation of CEA outcomes with values and budgetary constraints in resource-limited settings. The ethical implications of CEAs in resource-limited settings are vast. It is imperative that CEA outcome summary measures and implementation thresholds adequately reflect societal values and ethical priorities in resource-limited settings.

Evidence-based planning of a randomized controlled trial on diaphragm use for prevention of sexually transmitted infections.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted formative research to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of continuous diaphragm use among low-income women highly exposed to sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in Madagascar. GOAL: To identify potential obstacles to researching the effectiveness of diaphragm use for STI prevention in a randomized controlled trial. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed methods to collect complex information. In a quantitative pilot study, women were asked to use diaphragms continuously (removing once daily for cleaning) for 8 weeks and promote consistent male condom use; they were interviewed and examined clinically during follow-up. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted pre-/postpilot study. Audiotaped FGDs were transcribed, translated, coded, and analyzed. RESULTS: Ninety-three women participated in prepilot FGDs, 91 in the pilot study, and 82 in postpilot FGDs. Diaphragm use was acceptable and feasible, but participants reported lower condom use in FGDs than during interviews. Most participants reported in interviews that they used their diaphragms continuously, but FGDs revealed that extensive intravaginal hygiene practices may impede effective continuous diaphragm use. Despite counseling by study staff, FGDs revealed that participants believed the diaphragm provided effective protection against STIs and pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed methods formative research generated information that the prospective pilot study alone could not provide and revealed contradictory findings. Results have methodological and ethical implications that affect trial design including provision of free hormonal contraceptives, and additional instructions for vaginal hygiene to avoid displacing the diaphragm. Mixed methods formative research should be encouraged to promote evidence-based study design and implementation.