| Title |
Cost-effectiveness of Increasing Access to Contraception during the Zika Virus Outbreak, Puerto Rico, 2016
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2301.161322 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Li, Rui, Simmons, Katharine B., Bertolli, Jeanne, Rivera-Garcia, Brenda, Cox, Shanna, Romero, Lisa, Koonin, Lisa M., Valencia-Prado, Miguel, Bracero, Nabal, Jamieson, Denise J., Barfield, Wanda, Moore, Cynthia A., Mai, Cara T., Korhonen, Lauren C., Frey, Meghan T., Perez-Padilla, Janice, Torres-Muñoz, Ricardo, Grosse, Scott D. |
| Abstract |
We modeled the potential cost-effectiveness of increasing access to contraception in Puerto Rico during a Zika virus outbreak. The intervention is projected to cost an additional $33.5 million in family planning services and is likely to be cost-saving for the healthcare system overall. It could reduce Zika virus-related costs by $65.2 million ($2.8 million from less Zika virus testing and monitoring and $62.3 million from avoided costs of Zika virus-associated microcephaly [ZAM]). The estimates are influenced by the contraception methods used, the frequency of ZAM, and the lifetime incremental cost of ZAM. Accounting for unwanted pregnancies that are prevented, irrespective of Zika virus infection, an additional $40.4 million in medical costs would be avoided through the intervention. Increasing contraceptive access for women who want to delay or avoid pregnancy in Puerto Rico during a Zika virus outbreak can substantially reduce the number of cases of ZAM and healthcare costs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 48% |
| Belgium | 1 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 76% |
| Scientists | 3 | 12% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 124 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 22 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 23 | 18% |
| Unknown | 25 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 26 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,277,848
of 24,677,985 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#1,449
of 9,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,001
of 430,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#23
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,677,985 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 430,592 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.