Pozo-Martin F, Akazili J, Der R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a Community-based Hypertension Improvement Project (ComHIP) in Ghana: results from a modelling study. BMJ Open 2021;11:e039594. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039594
This article was previously published with an error.
There is a typographical error in table 1. The annual costs of healthcare provision for non-hypertensive patients in the ComHIP current scale-up and ComHIP GHS-LCS scale-up scenarios should be, ‘42820’ US$ instead of ‘4282’ US$ for the healthcare provider and ‘8910’ US$ instead of ‘891’ US$ for the patient-level costs. As a result of this typographical error, the calculations in table 1 are incorrect. The corrected table 1 is shown below.
-
To clarify the data in table 1, the second line of first paragraph under Results section has been modified to:
These are the total annual costs (including hypertension screening, diagnosis and treatment) to the healthcare provider and to patients of implementing ComHIP and standard care for a population of 10 000 adults in the intervention district.
-
The data related to table 1 has been updated in the second paragraph in the Results section addressing the results of the table. The paragraph now reads:
From table 1, current ComHIP scale-up is estimated to have an annual societal cost of US$903 285—it is 20% more costly than GHS-LCS ComHIP scale-up at US$751 322 per year—this difference is due to the lowering of unit costs (for the most part salaries) in the transfer of services between FHI360 and the GHS. At US$462 636 per year, standard care annual societal costs are 51% and 62% of the costs of current ComHIP scale-up and GHS-LCS ComHIP scale-up, respectively. With respect to the costing structure, note that postimplementation costs make up the bulk of all annual costs (96% and 98% for each respective ComHIP scenario and 100% for the standard care scenario). Of these postimplementation costs, the largest cost driver is health service provision (the time of healthcare staff, the medication and diagnostic test costs, the patient-level costs including time seeking healthcare, out-of-pocket expenditures and time lost to work, and the costs of screening non-hypertensives) with 71%, 84% and 87% of the postimplementation costs respectively, followed by the programme management costs (coordination meetings and field activities, technical staff support, administration costs) with 25%, 12% and 11%, respectively. Importantly, note the cost structure from table 1 results in an annual overhead cost per patient that differs substantially across scenarios—US$84.94 for the current ComHIP scale-up scenario, about twice as large as for the GHS-LCS ComHIP scale-up scenario and four times as large as for standard care. For the estimation of the annual programme costs, with lost to follow-up, the average annual societal costs per patient were US$197.20 in current ComHIP scale-up, US$152.10 in GHS-LCS ComHIP scale-up and US$119.63 in standard care.
The two tables extending the results of table 1 in the online supplemental file have also been updated.
Table 1.
Annual societal costs of hypertension screening, diagnosis and treatment (2017 US$)
| Scenario | Healthcare provider costs | Patient-level costs | Societal costs | % |
| SCENARIO (no of patients on hypertension treatment) | CURRENT ComHIP scale-up (n=3368) | |||
| Annual start-up costs (incremental costs*) |
33 097 (33 097) |
– | 33 097 (33 097) |
4 |
| 1. ComHIP app development | 5229 | – | 5229 | 16 |
| 2. Training | 11 338 | – | 11 338 | 34 |
| 3. Management | 16 529 | – | 16 529 | 50 |
| Annual post-implementation costs (incremental costs*) |
475 645 (222 289) |
394 543 (185 263) |
870 188 (407 552) |
96 |
| 1. ComHIP app support | 15 672 | – | 15 672 | 2 |
| 2. Acquisition of clinical and IT equipment | 20 849 | – | 20 849 | 2 |
| 3. Health service provision to hypertensive patients | 179 845 | 385 633 | 565 478 | 65 |
| 4. Health service provision to non-hypertensive individuals | 42 820 | 8910 | 51 730 | 6 |
| 5. Management | 216 459 | – | 216 459 | 25 |
| Total annual costs (incremental costs*) |
508 742 (255 386) |
394 543 (185 263) |
903 285 (440 649) |
100 |
| Overhead costs=total annual costs − health service provision | 286 076 | |||
| Overhead costs per patient | 84.94 | |||
| SCENARIO (no of patients on treatment) | GHS-LCS ComHIP SCALE-UP (n=3368) | |||
| Annual start-up costs (incremental costs*) |
15 499 (15 499) |
– | 15 499 (15 499) |
2 |
| 1. ComHIP app development | 207 | – | 207 | 1 |
| 2. Training | 8955 | – | 8955 | 58 |
| 3. Management | 6338 | – | 6338 | 41 |
| Annual post-implementation costs (incremental costs*) |
341 280 (87 924) |
394 543 (185 263) |
735 823 (273 187) |
98 |
| 1. ComHIP app support | 7660 | – | 7660 | 1 |
| 2. Acquisition of clinical and IT equipment | 20 849 | – | 20 849 | 3 |
| 3. Health service provision to hypertensive patients | 179 845 | 385 633 | 565 478 | 77 |
| 4. Health service provision to non-hypertensives | 42 820 | 8910 | 51 730 | 7 |
| 5. Management | 90 106 | – | 90 106 | 12 |
| Total annual costs (incremental costs*) |
356 779 (103 423) |
394 543 (185 263) |
751 322 (288 686) |
100 |
| Overhead costs=total annual costs - health service provision | 134 115 | |||
| Overhead costs per patient | 39.82 | |||
| SCENARIO (no of patients on treatment) | STANDARD CARE (n=3368) | |||
| Annual start-up costs | – | – | – | 0 |
| 1. ComHIP app development | – | – | – | – |
| 2. Training | – | – | – | – |
| 3. Management | – | – | – | – |
| Annual post-implementation costs | 253 356 | 209 280 | 462 636 | 100 |
| 1. ComHIP app support | – | – | – | 0 |
| 2. Acquisition of clinical and IT equipment | 9929 | – | 9929 | 2 |
| 3. Health service provision to hypertensive patients | 192 527 | 209 280 | 401 807 | 87 |
| 4. Management | 50 900 | – | 50 900 | 11 |
| Total annual costs | 253 356 | 209 280 | 462 636 | 100 |
| Overhead costs=total annual costs - health service provision | 60 829 | |||
| Overhead costs per patient | 18.06 | |||
Sources: own calculation based on cost-analysis.
*Incremental costs with respect to the annual costs of the standard care scenario
