Premium
Cost and effectiveness comparison of two methods for screening potential blood donors for anaemia in Vietnam
Author(s) -
Tyrrell A.,
Worrall E.,
Que T. N.,
Bates I.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
transfusion medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.471
H-Index - 59
eISSN - 1365-3148
pISSN - 0958-7578
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-3148.2010.01058.x
Subject(s) - economic shortage , workload , medicine , cost effectiveness , blood units , significant difference , emergency medicine , blood bank , environmental health , blood transfusion , surgery , computer science , risk analysis (engineering) , linguistics , philosophy , government (linguistics) , operating system
Aim/Objective: To compare the cost and effectiveness of Copper Sulphate (CS) and HemoCue (HC) methods for screening blood donors for anaemia. Background: Robust information from developing countries about cost and effectiveness of anaemia screening methods for blood donors is scarce. In such countries there are widespread shortages of blood, so the most cost‐effective method should maximise blood supply without compromising donor safety. Methods: Economic data (e.g. staff time, equipment and buildings) were collected from direct observation of procedures and purchase data from Hanoi's Central Blood Bank administrative department. A framework for comparing the cost and effectiveness of anaemia screening methods was developed and a cost per effective (i.e. usable and accurate) test was generated for each method. Results: Samples from 100 potential donors from the Hanoi Central Blood Bank (static) and 198 from two mobile units were tested. The mean probability of an ineffective anaemia test was 0·1 (0·05–0·2). The average cost of an HC test was $0·75 (static $0·61 and mobile $0·89) and a CS test was $0·31 (static $0·17 and mobile $0·45). The difference between static and mobile units was predominantly due to transport costs; the difference between the two methods was predominantly due to the HC microcuvettes. Conclusion: In this setting the CS yields greater value for money than the HC method for screening blood donors. The relative cost and effectiveness of CS and HC may be different in places with higher staff turnover, lower test accuracy, higher anaemia prevalence or lower workload than in Vietnam.