Journal Design Clinical Emerald
African Food Systems Research (Interdisciplinary - incl Agri/Env) | 12 November 2001

Cost-Effectiveness of Public Health Surveillance Systems in Nigeria

A Randomised Field Trial Methodological Evaluation
C, h, i, n, w, e, O, k, o, n, k, w, o, ,, A, d, e, b, a, y, o, A, d, e, y, e, m, i
Health EconomicsSurveillance SystemsRandomised TrialNigeria
Cluster-randomised trial compared centralised versus decentralised surveillance architectures.
Decentralised system showed lower mean cost per confirmed case (£1,240 vs £1,850).
Primary analysis indicated 92% probability of decentralised system being cost-effective.
Study advocates for randomised designs in future surveillance system evaluations.

Abstract

{ "background": "Public health surveillance is critical for early disease detection and response, yet evidence on the cost-effectiveness of different surveillance system designs in low-resource settings remains sparse. This gap hinders optimal resource allocation for health security.", "purpose and objectives": "This case study aimed to methodologically evaluate a randomised field trial design for measuring the cost-effectiveness of two distinct public health surveillance system architectures in a real-world setting.", "methodology": "We implemented a cluster-randomised field trial across multiple districts. Districts were randomly assigned to either a centralised, laboratory-based surveillance system or a decentralised, community-led system. Cost data were collected prospectively. Effectiveness was measured via timeliness and completeness of case reporting. Cost-effectiveness was analysed using a decision-analytic model, with the primary outcome being the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Statistical inference was based on a generalised linear mixed model: $Y{ij} = \\beta0 + \\beta1 X{ij} + uj + \\epsilon{ij}$, where $u_j$ are random cluster effects, with robust standard errors.", "findings": "The decentralised system demonstrated a lower mean cost per confirmed case reported, with a point estimate of £1,240 (95% CI: £1,100 to £1,410) compared to £1,850 for the centralised system. The primary analysis indicated a 92% probability that the decentralised system was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £1,500 per timely report.", "conclusion": "The randomised field trial proved a rigorous methodological approach for comparative economic evaluation of surveillance systems. The decentralised model showed a high probability of being more cost-effective under the studied conditions.", "recommendations": "Future evaluations of public health surveillance should incorporate randomised designs where ethically and practically feasible. Policymakers should consider piloting decentralised, community-integrated surveillance architectures to enhance cost-efficiency.", "key words": "health economics, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, cluster