BACKGROUND: Sexual and reproductive health (SRH) programmes and services aim to prevent complications of pregnancy and childbirth, unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortions, complications caused by sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, sexual violence and impacts from avoidable cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify published economic evaluations of SRH programmes and services, assess the methods used and analyse how costs and outcomes are estimated in these studies.
SETTINGS: Low- and middle-income countries.
DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis.
METHODS: Eight databases were searched, including EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, Health Technology Assessment, Web of Science, PsycINFO, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and African Journals Online (AJOL) from 1998 to December 2023. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome and Study Design framework. The review included economic evaluations alongside randomised trials and economic studies with modelling components. Study characteristics, methods and results of economic evaluations were extracted and tabulated. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list and Philips checklists for trial-based and model-based studies, respectively. The review followed the reporting guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the results were synthesised narratively in line with Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance.
RESULTS: 7575 studies were screened and categorised. 20 studies were included in the review. The studies assessed the cost-effectiveness and costs of SRH programmes and services from an individual, healthcare or societal perspective. The main SRH programme considered was contraceptive services. The main outcome measures reported were disability-adjusted life years, quality-adjusted life years, couple years of protection and pregnancies averted. Most of the studies did not indicate the costing approach used, and many of the studies evaluated direct medical costs only. Most of the study designs were model-based with significant heterogeneity between the models. The review showed that many studies did not fulfil all of the requirements for a high-quality economic evaluation. 1 out of the 20 studies reviewed considered equity.
CONCLUSIONS: The review revealed heterogeneity in approaches to evaluating the costs and outcomes of SRH programmes. These methodological limitations may have implications for their use by public health decision-makers to inform optimal decision-making.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023435241.
