RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Cost evaluation of Minimally Invasive Tissue Sampling (MITS) implementation in low- and middle-income countries
Morrison, L. T. R., Brown, E. G., Paganelli, C. R., Bhattarai, S., Hailu, R., Ntakirutimana, G., Mbarushimana, D., Subedi, N., & Goco, N. (2021). Cost evaluation of Minimally Invasive Tissue Sampling (MITS) implementation in low- and middle-income countries. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 73(5), S401-S407. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab828
Background Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face disproportionately high mortality rates, yet the causes of death in LMICs are not robustly understood, limiting the effectiveness of interventions to reduce mortality. Minimally invasive tissue sampling (MITS) is a standardized postmortem examination method that holds promise for use in LMICs, where other approaches for determining cause of death are too costly or unacceptable. This study documents the costs associated with implementing the MITS procedure in LMICs from the healthcare provider perspective and aims to inform resource allocation decisions by public health decisionmakers.
Methods We surveyed 4 sites in LMICs across Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia with experience conducting MITS. Using a bottom-up costing approach, we collected direct costs of resources (labor and materials) to conduct MITS and the pre-implementation costs required to initiate MITS.
Results Initial investments range widely yet represent a substantial cost to implement MITS and are determined by the existing infrastructure and needs of a site. The costs to conduct a single case range between $609 and $1028 per case and are driven by labor, sample testing, and MITS supplies costs.
Conclusions Variation in each site’s use of staff roles and testing protocols suggests sites conducting MITS may adapt use of resources based on available expertise, equipment, and surveillance objectives. This study is a first step toward necessary examinations of cost-effectiveness, which may provide insight into cost optimization and economic justification for the expansion of MITS.