Cost–effectiveness of emergency care interventions in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Objective To systematically review and appraise the quality of cost–effectiveness analyses of emergency care interventions in low-and middle-income countries. Methods Following the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed®, Scopus, EMBASE®, Cochrane Library and Web of Science for studies published before May 2019. Inclusion criteria were: (i) an original cost–effectiveness analysis of emergency care intervention or intervention package, and (ii) the analysis occurred in a low-and middle-income setting. To identify additional primary studies, we hand searched the reference lists of included studies. We used the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards guideline to appraise the quality of included studies. Results Of the 1674 articles we identified, 35 articles met the inclusion criteria. We identified an additional four studies from the reference lists. We excluded many studies for being deemed costing assessments without an effectiveness analysis. Most included studies were single-intervention analyses. Emergency care interventions evaluated by included studies covered prehospital services, provider training, treatment interventions, emergency diagnostic tools and facilities and packages of care. The reporting quality of the studies varied. Conclusion We found large gaps in the evidence surrounding the cost–effectiveness of emergency care interventions in low-and middle-income settings. Given the breadth of interventions currently in practice, many interventions remain unassessed, suggesting the need for future research to aid resource allocation decisions. In particular, packages of multiple interventions and system-level changes represent a priority area for future research.