Cost-effectiveness of strategies to prevent road traffic injuries in eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia

New results from WHO-CHOICE

Ambinintsoa H. Ralaidovy, Abdulgafoor M Bachani, Jeremy A. Lauer, Taavi Lai, Dan Chisholm

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Road safety has been receiving increased attention through the United Nations Decade of Action on Road Safety, and is also now specifically addressed in the sustainable development goals 3.6 and 11.2. In an effort to enhance the response to Road Traffic Injuries (RTIs), this paper aims to examine the cost effectiveness of proven preventive interventions and forms part of an update of the WHO-CHOICE programme. Methods: Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) approach was used for our analysis. GCEA applies a null reference case, in which the effects of currently implemented interventions are subtracted from current rates of burden, in order to identify the most efficient package of interventions. A population model was used to arrive at estimates of intervention effectiveness. All heath system costs required to deliver the intervention, regardless of payer, were included. Interventions are considered to be implemented for 100 years. The analysis was undertaken for eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Results: In Southeast Asia, among individual interventions, drink driving legislation and its enforcement via random breath testing of drivers at roadside checkpoints, at 80% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention. Moreover, the combination of "speed limits + random breath testing + motorcycle helmet use", at 90% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective package. In eastern sub-Saharan Africa, enforcement of speed limits via mobile/handheld cameras, at 80% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective single intervention. The combination of "seatbelt use + motorcycle helmet use + speed limits + random breath testing" at 90% coverage was found to be the most cost-effective intervention package. Conclusion: This study presents updated estimates on cost-effectiveness of practical, evidence-based strategies that countries can use to address the burden of RTIs. The combination of individual interventions that enforces simultaneously multiple road safety measures are proving to be the most cost-effective scenarios. It is important to note, however, that, in addition to enacting and enforcing legislation on the risk factors highlighted as part of this paper, countries need to have a coordinated, multi-faceted strategy to improve road safety.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number59
JournalCost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 20 2018

Fingerprint

Eastern Africa
Southeastern Asia
Africa South of the Sahara
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs and Cost Analysis
Wounds and Injuries
Motorcycles
Safety
Head Protective Devices
Legislation
United Nations
Conservation of Natural Resources
Population

Keywords

  • Abdulgafoor m. bachani
  • Cost-effectiveness analysis
  • Dan chisholm
  • Expansion path
  • Priority setting
  • Resource allocation
  • Road safety
  • Road traffic injury
  • WHO-CHOICE

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

Cost-effectiveness of strategies to prevent road traffic injuries in eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia : New results from WHO-CHOICE. / Ralaidovy, Ambinintsoa H.; Bachani, Abdulgafoor M; Lauer, Jeremy A.; Lai, Taavi; Chisholm, Dan.

In: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, Vol. 16, No. 1, 59, 20.11.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{56d59c9e7cf643d884125d08e7e80dd5,
title = "Cost-effectiveness of strategies to prevent road traffic injuries in eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia: New results from WHO-CHOICE",
abstract = "Background: Road safety has been receiving increased attention through the United Nations Decade of Action on Road Safety, and is also now specifically addressed in the sustainable development goals 3.6 and 11.2. In an effort to enhance the response to Road Traffic Injuries (RTIs), this paper aims to examine the cost effectiveness of proven preventive interventions and forms part of an update of the WHO-CHOICE programme. Methods: Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) approach was used for our analysis. GCEA applies a null reference case, in which the effects of currently implemented interventions are subtracted from current rates of burden, in order to identify the most efficient package of interventions. A population model was used to arrive at estimates of intervention effectiveness. All heath system costs required to deliver the intervention, regardless of payer, were included. Interventions are considered to be implemented for 100 years. The analysis was undertaken for eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Results: In Southeast Asia, among individual interventions, drink driving legislation and its enforcement via random breath testing of drivers at roadside checkpoints, at 80{\%} coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention. Moreover, the combination of {"}speed limits + random breath testing + motorcycle helmet use{"}, at 90{\%} coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective package. In eastern sub-Saharan Africa, enforcement of speed limits via mobile/handheld cameras, at 80{\%} coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective single intervention. The combination of {"}seatbelt use + motorcycle helmet use + speed limits + random breath testing{"} at 90{\%} coverage was found to be the most cost-effective intervention package. Conclusion: This study presents updated estimates on cost-effectiveness of practical, evidence-based strategies that countries can use to address the burden of RTIs. The combination of individual interventions that enforces simultaneously multiple road safety measures are proving to be the most cost-effective scenarios. It is important to note, however, that, in addition to enacting and enforcing legislation on the risk factors highlighted as part of this paper, countries need to have a coordinated, multi-faceted strategy to improve road safety.",
keywords = "Abdulgafoor m. bachani, Cost-effectiveness analysis, Dan chisholm, Expansion path, Priority setting, Resource allocation, Road safety, Road traffic injury, WHO-CHOICE",
author = "Ralaidovy, {Ambinintsoa H.} and Bachani, {Abdulgafoor M} and Lauer, {Jeremy A.} and Taavi Lai and Dan Chisholm",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
day = "20",
doi = "10.1186/s12962-018-0161-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
journal = "Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation",
issn = "1478-7547",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness of strategies to prevent road traffic injuries in eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia

T2 - New results from WHO-CHOICE

AU - Ralaidovy, Ambinintsoa H.

AU - Bachani, Abdulgafoor M

AU - Lauer, Jeremy A.

AU - Lai, Taavi

AU - Chisholm, Dan

PY - 2018/11/20

Y1 - 2018/11/20

N2 - Background: Road safety has been receiving increased attention through the United Nations Decade of Action on Road Safety, and is also now specifically addressed in the sustainable development goals 3.6 and 11.2. In an effort to enhance the response to Road Traffic Injuries (RTIs), this paper aims to examine the cost effectiveness of proven preventive interventions and forms part of an update of the WHO-CHOICE programme. Methods: Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) approach was used for our analysis. GCEA applies a null reference case, in which the effects of currently implemented interventions are subtracted from current rates of burden, in order to identify the most efficient package of interventions. A population model was used to arrive at estimates of intervention effectiveness. All heath system costs required to deliver the intervention, regardless of payer, were included. Interventions are considered to be implemented for 100 years. The analysis was undertaken for eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Results: In Southeast Asia, among individual interventions, drink driving legislation and its enforcement via random breath testing of drivers at roadside checkpoints, at 80% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention. Moreover, the combination of "speed limits + random breath testing + motorcycle helmet use", at 90% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective package. In eastern sub-Saharan Africa, enforcement of speed limits via mobile/handheld cameras, at 80% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective single intervention. The combination of "seatbelt use + motorcycle helmet use + speed limits + random breath testing" at 90% coverage was found to be the most cost-effective intervention package. Conclusion: This study presents updated estimates on cost-effectiveness of practical, evidence-based strategies that countries can use to address the burden of RTIs. The combination of individual interventions that enforces simultaneously multiple road safety measures are proving to be the most cost-effective scenarios. It is important to note, however, that, in addition to enacting and enforcing legislation on the risk factors highlighted as part of this paper, countries need to have a coordinated, multi-faceted strategy to improve road safety.

AB - Background: Road safety has been receiving increased attention through the United Nations Decade of Action on Road Safety, and is also now specifically addressed in the sustainable development goals 3.6 and 11.2. In an effort to enhance the response to Road Traffic Injuries (RTIs), this paper aims to examine the cost effectiveness of proven preventive interventions and forms part of an update of the WHO-CHOICE programme. Methods: Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) approach was used for our analysis. GCEA applies a null reference case, in which the effects of currently implemented interventions are subtracted from current rates of burden, in order to identify the most efficient package of interventions. A population model was used to arrive at estimates of intervention effectiveness. All heath system costs required to deliver the intervention, regardless of payer, were included. Interventions are considered to be implemented for 100 years. The analysis was undertaken for eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Results: In Southeast Asia, among individual interventions, drink driving legislation and its enforcement via random breath testing of drivers at roadside checkpoints, at 80% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention. Moreover, the combination of "speed limits + random breath testing + motorcycle helmet use", at 90% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective package. In eastern sub-Saharan Africa, enforcement of speed limits via mobile/handheld cameras, at 80% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective single intervention. The combination of "seatbelt use + motorcycle helmet use + speed limits + random breath testing" at 90% coverage was found to be the most cost-effective intervention package. Conclusion: This study presents updated estimates on cost-effectiveness of practical, evidence-based strategies that countries can use to address the burden of RTIs. The combination of individual interventions that enforces simultaneously multiple road safety measures are proving to be the most cost-effective scenarios. It is important to note, however, that, in addition to enacting and enforcing legislation on the risk factors highlighted as part of this paper, countries need to have a coordinated, multi-faceted strategy to improve road safety.

KW - Abdulgafoor m. bachani

KW - Cost-effectiveness analysis

KW - Dan chisholm

KW - Expansion path

KW - Priority setting

KW - Resource allocation

KW - Road safety

KW - Road traffic injury

KW - WHO-CHOICE

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057065846&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85057065846&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12962-018-0161-4

DO - 10.1186/s12962-018-0161-4

M3 - Article

VL - 16

JO - Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

JF - Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

SN - 1478-7547

IS - 1

M1 - 59

ER -