02055nas a2200193   4500000000100000008004100001653002700042653001200069653003400081653001200115653003100127100001300158700001900171700002200190245010300212300001100315520151700326020001801843       1999                            d10aRoutine case detection10aMyanmar10aLeprosy elimination campaigns10aleprosy10aCost-effectivines Analysis1 aKyaw T W1 aSupakankunti S1 aKamol-Ratanakul P00aCost-effectiveness Analysis of Routine Case Detection and Leprosy Elimination Campaigns in Myanmar  a105 p.3 a<p>The current problem in the Leprosy Elimination Programme in Myanmar is lowcoverage of registered cases and there is evidence that backlog (hidden cases) areremained in the community. So there is a need for intensification of case findingactivities in the implementation of the leprosy elimination programme. LeprosyElimination Campaigns (LEC) is a strategy to detect hidden cases, remained in thecommunity. The major objective of this study is to assess the cost and effectiveness ofdifferent case finding activities: Routine Case Detection and LECs from the provideras well as patient's perspective. In this study, effectiveness in term of newly casesdetected were used to find out which method of case finding activities is better. Thecost effectiveness ratio are found out from three different endemic areas. The studyshows that both provider as well as patient's perspective LECs activities is morecost effectiveness than Routine Case Detection activities. In low divisional endemic area, the cost-effectiveness ratio of 1998 LECTownship (Htantabin) is US$ 57 per newly detected case, but the cost-effectivenessratio of 1998 Routine Case Detection Township (Kawhmu) is US$ 95.3. In mediumdivisional endemic area, the CE ratio of LEC (Myaung) is US$ 17.5 and RoutineTownship (Salingyi) is US$ 39.9. In high divisional endemic area, LEC Township (Okpo)is US$ 24 and Routine Township (Gyobingauk) is US$ 52.1. So LEC activities are 1.7 to2.3 times cost effective than Routine Case Detection activities.</p>
  a974-346-006-3