Developmental medicine and child neurology
October 18, 2026 · via Europe PMC
Economic evaluation of the Akwenda Intervention Program for children and young people with cerebral palsy in rural Uganda: A trial-based analysis of costs and outcomes.
Asige E, Kintu E, Saloojee G, +5 more, Forssberg H.
AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only
The Akwenda community-based programme for children and young people with cerebral palsy in rural Uganda improved outcomes at additional but predictable cost.
What was studied
A trial-based economic evaluation within a cluster-randomised, assessor-blinded trial of 94 participants aged 2-23 years and their caregivers, estimating costs and outcome-specific cost-effectiveness ratios over 12 months.
Key findings
- Mean incremental cost per child was US$1069 to US$1075
- Outcome-specific ICERs ranged from US$26 to US$352 per unit of improvement for 10 of 11 outcomes; PEDI-UG mobility was higher and highly uncertain
- Costs per minimal clinically important difference gained ranged from US$230 to US$600
Clinical relevance
Gives funders and planners costs per unit of improvement for community rehabilitation in a low-resource setting.
Who should care
Limitations
No Uganda-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds exist, so acceptability analyses are exploratory. Provider-perspective costs are restricted and the trial was modest in size.
Costs are quantifiable, but whether the programme is good value depends on local thresholds that do not yet exist.
This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.
Abstract
To relate the trial-based costs of the Akwenda Intervention Program, a multi-component, community-based intervention for children and young people with cerebral palsy (CP) in rural Uganda, to multiple prespecified child and caregiver outcomes. An economic evaluation was conducted within a cluster-randomized, assessor-blinded trial of 94 participants with CP (aged 2-23 years; 42 females) and their caregivers, allocated to intervention or usual care. Programme delivery costs were assessed from a restricted health care or provider perspective; selected out-of-pocket costs incurred by participating families were reported separately over 12 months. Outcome-specific incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for child outcomes (66-item Gross Motor Function Measure, Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory [Ugandan version], and Picture My Participation) and caregiver outcomes (Zimbabwe Caregiver Challenges Scale and Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Family Impact Module). Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping, cost-effectiveness planes, and exploratory acceptability curves. Costs were also determined per minimal clinically important difference (MCID) gained. The mean incremental cost per child was US$1069 to US$1075. Outcome-specific ICERs ranged from US$26 to US$352 per unit of improvement for 10 of 11 outcomes; the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (Ugandan version) mobility had a higher and highly uncertain ICER. Costs per MCID gained ranged from US$230 to US$600. Acceptability analyses were presented as exploratory uncertainty analyses because no established Uganda-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds exist for these outcome measures. The Akwenda Intervention Program improved child functioning, participation, and caregiver well-being at additional but predictable costs. This trial-based economic evaluation quantifies the costs associated with improvement across multiple prespecified outcomes and provides economic information relevant to the implementation of community-based rehabilitation in low-resource settings.
DOI
10.1111/dmcn.70581
PMID
42893590
Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.
Want more like this?
Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.
Back to the research feed