Overview of the Lives Saved Tool (LiST)

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the historical development and current status of the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). The paper provides a general explanation of the modeling approach used in the model with links to web sites and other articles with more details. It also details the development process in developing both the model structure as well as the assumptions used in the model. The paper provides information about how LiST has been and is currently being used by various organizations and within national health programs. We also provide a review of the work that has been done to try to validate the outputs of the model.

Related collections

Most cited references 14

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Evidence-based, cost-effective interventions: how many newborn babies can we save?

Gary Darmstadt, Zulfiqar Bhutta, Simon Cousens … (2005)

In this second article of the neonatal survival series, we identify 16 interventions with proven efficacy (implementation under ideal conditions) for neonatal survival and combine them into packages for scaling up in health systems, according to three service delivery modes (outreach, family-community, and facility-based clinical care). All the packages of care are cost effective compared with single interventions. Universal (99%) coverage of these interventions could avert an estimated 41-72% of neonatal deaths worldwide. At 90% coverage, intrapartum and postnatal packages have similar effects on neonatal mortality--two-fold to three-fold greater than that of antenatal care. However, running costs are two-fold higher for intrapartum than for postnatal care. A combination of universal--ie, for all settings--outreach and family-community care at 90% coverage averts 18-37% of neonatal deaths. Most of this benefit is derived from family-community care, and greater effect is seen in settings with very high neonatal mortality. Reductions in neonatal mortality that exceed 50% can be achieved with an integrated, high-coverage programme of universal outreach and family-community care, consisting of 12% and 26%, respectively, of total running costs, plus universal facility-based clinical services, which make up 62% of the total cost. Early success in averting neonatal deaths is possible in settings with high mortality and weak health systems through outreach and family-community care, including health education to improve home-care practices, to create demand for skilled care, and to improve care seeking. Simultaneous expansion of clinical care for babies and mothers is essential to achieve the reduction in neonatal deaths needed to meet the Millennium Development Goal for child survival.

0 comments Cited 550 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Standards for CHERG reviews of intervention effects on child survival

Neff Walker, Christa Fischer-Walker, Jennifer Bryce … (2010)

Background The Lives Saved Tool (LiST) uses estimates of the effects of interventions on cause-specific child mortality as a basis for generating projections of child lives that could be saved by increasing coverage of effective interventions. Estimates of intervention effects are an essential element of LiST, and need to reflect the best available scientific evidence. This article describes the guidelines developed by the Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group (CHERG) that are applied by scientists conducting reviews of intervention effects for use in LiST. Methods The guidelines build on and extend those developed by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Working Group for Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). They reflect the experience gained by the CHERG intervention review groups in conducting the reviews published in this volume, and will continue to be refined through future reviews. Presentation of the guidelines Expected products and guidelines are described for six steps in the CHERG intervention review process: (i) defining the scope of the review; (ii) conducting the literature search; (iii) extracting information from individual studies; (iv) assessing and summarizing the evidence; (v) translating the evidence into estimates of intervention effects and (vi) presenting the results. Conclusions The CHERG intervention reviews represent an ambitious effort to summarize existing evidence and use it as the basis for supporting sound public health decision making through LiST. These efforts will continue, and a similar process is now under way to assess intervention effects for reducing maternal mortality.

0 comments Cited 110 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Mathematical models in the evaluation of health programmes.

Geoffrey Garnett, Simon Cousens, Timothy B Hallett … (2011)

Modelling is valuable in the planning and evaluation of interventions, especially when a controlled trial is ethically or logistically impossible. Models are often used to calculate the expected course of events in the absence of more formal assessments. They are also used to derive estimates of rare or future events from recorded intermediate points. When developing models, decisions are needed about the appropriate level of complexity to be represented and about model structure and assumptions. The degree of rigor in model development and assessment can vary greatly, and there is a danger that existing beliefs inappropriately influence judgments about model assumptions and results. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 106 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Neff Walker

Yvonne Tam

Ingrid K Friberg

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Public Health

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Public Health

Title: BMC Public Health

Publisher: BioMed Central

ISSN (Electronic): 1471-2458

Publication date Collection: 2013

Publication date (Electronic): 17 September 2013

Volume: 13

Issue: Suppl 3

Page: S1

Affiliations

[1 ]Institute for International Programs and Department of International Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

Article

Publisher ID: 1471-2458-13-S3-S1

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-S3-S1

PMC ID: 3847271

PubMed ID: 24564438

SO-VID: bd87ecec-95a2-417b-8100-364a358db103

License:

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Overview of the Lives Saved Tool ( LiST)

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Karger: Digital Health

Most cited references 14

Evidence-based, cost-effective interventions: how many newborn babies can we save?

Standards for CHERG reviews of intervention effects on child survival

Mathematical models in the evaluation of health programmes.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 44

Cited by 120

Most referenced authors 394