Skip to main content
Fig. 5 | Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

Fig. 5

From: Optimizing treatment for the prevention of pre-eclampsia/eclampsia in Nepal: is calcium supplementation during pregnancy cost-effective?

Fig. 5

Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for three alternatives. a Calcium program (blue) vs. standard of care (red); b Calcium program (blue) vs. no treatment (red); c Standard of care (blue) vs. no treatment (red). The curves represent the percentage of iterations that were cost-effective (y-axis) for varying willingness-to-pay thresholds in 2014 US$ up to a ceiling $100. Findings suggest that the addition of calcium to the existing standard of care (MGSO4) is favored above a WTP threshold of ~$30 USD. When compared against a scenario of no treatment (B), MgSO4 + calcium is the preferred strategy for WTP thresholds of $25 or more. When considered independently of calcium supplementation, MGSO4 vs. no treatment is considered good value for money above WTP thresholds of $10 USD

Back to article page