Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:38:42.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems and Prospects in the Economic Evaluation of Antenatal Care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Harald Buhaug
Harald Buhaug
Affiliation:
Norwegian Institute for Hospital Research, Trondheim
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Economic evaluations can be used to compare alternative antenatal care programs in terms of cost and outcome. The cost of routine antenatal care is small compared to the total cost associated with pregnancy and childbirth. The main problem in economic evaluations is related to outcome measurement.

Type
Methodological Considerations in the Evaluation of Antenatal Care Programs
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 8 , Supplement S1 , January 1992 , pp. 49 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Backe, B.International comparisons of antenatal care. Experiences from Norway. Conference paper, Trondheim, 1990.Google Scholar
2.Drummond, M. E., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W.Methodsfor the economic evaluation of health care programs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
3.Eddy, D. Technology assessment: The role of mathematical modelling. In Institute of Medicine, Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985.Google Scholar
4.Gorsky, R. D., & Colby, J. P.The cost effectiveness of prenatal care in reducing low birth weight in New Hampshire. HSR: Health services Research, 1989, 24, 583–98.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Joyce, T., Corman, H., & Grossman, M.A cost-effectiveness analysis of strategies to reduce infant mortality. Medical Care, 1988, 26, 349–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed