The Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of an Integrated Wasting Prevention and Screening Intervention Package in Burkina Faso and Mali.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about costs and cost effectiveness of interventions that integrate wasting prevention into screening for child wasting. OBJECTIVES: This study's objective was to estimate the cost and cost-effectiveness of an intervention that integrated behavior change communication (BCC) and small-quantity lipid-based nutrient supplements (SQ-LNS) into platforms for wasting screening in Burkina Faso (a facility-based platform, where BCC was enhanced compared with standard care) and Mali (a community-based platform, with standard BCC). METHODS: Activity-based costing was used to estimate the cost per child-contact for the intervention and the comparison group, which did not receive the intervention. Costs were ascertained from accounting records, interviews, surveys, and observations. The number of child-contacts was calculated using population size estimates and average attendance rates for each service. Costs per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted were estimated using a Markov model populated with data from the parent trials on impact of wasting incidence and treatment coverage. RESULTS: In the intervention group in Burkina Faso, the cost per child-contact of facility-based screening was $0.85 of enhanced BCC was $4.28, and of SQ-LNS was $8.86. In Mali, the cost per child-contact of community-based screening was $0.57, standard BCC was $0.72, and SQ-LNS was $4.14. Although no SQ-LNS costs were incurred in the comparison groups (hence lower total costs), costs per child-contact for screening and BCC were higher because coverage of these services was lower. The intervention package cost $1073 per DALY averted in Burkina Faso and $747 in Mali. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of wasting prevention into screening for child wasting led to higher total costs but lower unit costs than standard screening due to increased coverage. Greater cost-effectiveness could be achieved if BCC were strengthened and led to improved caregiver health and nutrition practices and if screening triggered appropriate use of services and higher treatment coverage.

Reassessing potential economic value and health impact of effective Shigella vaccines.

The gram-negative bacterium Shigella is a leading cause of diarrheal morbidity and mortality in children in low- and middle-income countries. Several promising vaccine candidates are in late stages of clinical development against this increasingly antibiotic-resistant pathogen. However, considering the increasingly crowded and costly paediatric immunization schedule, and likely advent of other important new vaccines, it is unclear whether introduction of a Shigella vaccine would represent a high priority for international agencies or health ministries in low- and middle-income countries. To determine whether there is a compelling public health value proposition for a Shigella vaccine, we used the World Health Organization's Full Value of Vaccine Assessment analytic framework and formulated five broad scientific, policy, economic and commercial-related propositions regarding the development of a Shigella vaccine. We also explored the current regulatory, clinical, policy and commercial challenges to a Shigella-containing combination vaccine development and adoption. Through a series of literature reviews, expert consultations, social science field studies and model-based analyses, we addressed each of these propositions. As described in a series of separate publications that are synthesized here, we concluded that the economic and public health value of a Shigella vaccine may be greater than previously recognized, particularly if it is found to also be effective against less severe forms of diarrheal disease and childhood stunting. The decision by pharmaceutical companies to develop a standalone vaccine or a multipathogen combination will be a key factor in determining its relative prioritization by various stakeholders in low- and middle-income countries.

La bactérie à Gram négatif Shigella est l'une des principales causes de morbidité et de mortalité diarrhéiques chez les enfants des pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire. Plusieurs candidats vaccins prometteurs sont en phase avancée de conception clinique contre cet agent pathogène qui connaît une antibiorésistance croissante. Toutefois, compte tenu du calendrier de vaccination pédiatrique de plus en plus chargé et coûteux et de l'arrivée probable d'autres nouveaux vaccins importants, il n'est pas certain que la mise sur le marché d'un vaccin contre Shigella constitue une priorité élevée pour les agences internationales ou les ministères de la Santé des pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire. Pour déterminer l'existence d'un intérêt convaincant en matière de santé publique pour un vaccin contre Shigella, nous avons utilisé le cadre analytique du cadre d'évaluation de la valeur totale des vaccins de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé et formulé cinq propositions scientifiques, politiques, économiques et commerciales générales concernant la conception d'un vaccin contre Shigella. Nous avons également étudié les défis en matière réglementaire, clinique, politique et commerciale qui se posent actuellement à la mise au point et à l'adoption d'un vaccin combiné contenant des Shigella. Nous avons abordé chacune de ces propositions au moyen d'une série d'analyses documentaires, de consultations d'experts, d'études de terrain en sciences sociales et d'analyses basées sur des modèles. Comme décrit dans une série de publications distinctes résumées ici, nous avons conclu que la valeur économique et sur le plan de la santé publique d'un vaccin contre Shigella pourrait être plus importante que ce qui était considéré précédemment, en particulier s'il s'avère que ce vaccin s'avère également efficace contre les formes moins sévères de maladies diarrhéiques et de retard de croissance chez l'enfant. La décision d'entreprises pharmaceutiques de mettre au point un vaccin autonome ou une combinaison de plusieurs agents pathogènes sera un facteur clé dans la détermination de sa priorité relative par les différentes parties prenantes dans les pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire.

La bacteria gramnegativa Shigella es una de las principales causas de morbilidad y mortalidad por diarrea en niños de países de ingresos bajos y medios. Varias vacunas candidatas y prometedoras se encuentran en las últimas fases de desarrollo clínico contra este patógeno cada vez más resistente a los antibióticos. Sin embargo, teniendo en cuenta el esquema de inmunización pediátrica, cada vez más saturado y costoso, y la probable llegada de otras vacunas nuevas importantes, no está claro si la introducción de una vacuna contra la Shigella representaría una alta prioridad para los organismos internacionales o los ministerios de salud de los países de ingresos bajos y medios. Para determinar si existe una propuesta de valor de salud pública convincente para una vacuna contra la Shigella, utilizamos el marco de análisis Full Value of Vaccine Assessment de la Organización Mundial de la Salud y formulamos cinco amplias propuestas científicas, políticas, económicas y comerciales relacionadas con el desarrollo de una vacuna contra la Shigella. También exploramos los actuales desafíos reglamentarios, clínicos, políticos y comerciales para el desarrollo y la adopción de una vacuna combinada que contenga Shigella. Mediante una serie de revisiones bibliográficas, consultas a expertos, estudios de campo de ciencias sociales y análisis basados en modelos, abordamos cada una de estas proposiciones. Como se describe en una serie de publicaciones separadas que se sintetizan aquí, llegamos a la conclusión de que el valor económico y de salud pública de una vacuna contra la Shigella puede ser mayor de lo que se reconocía anteriormente, en particular si se descubre que también es eficaz contra formas menos graves de enfermedad diarreica y retraso del crecimiento infantil. La decisión de las empresas farmacéuticas de desarrollar una vacuna independiente o una combinación multipatógena será un factor clave a la hora de determinar su prioridad relativa por parte de las diversas partes interesadas en los países de ingresos bajos y medios.

Preventing chronic malnutrition in children under 2 years in rural Angola (MuCCUA trial): protocol for the economic evaluation of a three-arm community cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic malnutrition is a serious problem in southern Angola with a prevalence of 49.9% and 37.2% in the provinces of Huila and Cunene, respectively. The MuCCUA (Mother and Child Chronic Undernutrition in Angola) trial is a community-based randomised controlled trial (c-RCT) which aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a nutrition supplementation plus standard of care intervention and a cash transfer plus standard of care intervention in preventing stunting, and to compare them with a standard of care alone intervention in southern Angola. This protocol describes the planned economic evaluation associated with the c-RCT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness analysis nested within the MuCCUA trial with a societal perspective, measuring programme, provider, participant and household costs. We will collect programme costs prospectively using a combined calculation method including quantitative and qualitative data. Financial costs will be estimated by applying activity-based costing methods to accounting records using time allocation sheets. We will estimate costs not included in accounting records by the ingredients approach, and indirect costs incurred by beneficiaries through interviews, household surveys and focus group discussions. Cost-efficiency will be estimated as cost per output achieved by combining activity-specific cost data with routine data on programme outputs. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed as cost per stunting case prevented. We will calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios comparing the additional cost per improved outcome of the different intervention arms and the standard of care. We will perform sensitivity analyses to assess robustness of results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This economic evaluation will provide useful information to the Angolan Government and other policymakers on the most cost-effective intervention to prevent stunting in this and other comparable contexts. The protocol was approved by the República de Angola Ministério da Saúde Comité de Ética (27C.E/MINSA.INIS/2022). The findings of this study will be disseminated within academia and the wider policy sphere. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05571280).

Potential impact and cost-effectiveness of Shigella vaccination in 102 low-income and middle-income countries in children aged 5 years or younger: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine impact and cost-effectiveness models have mostly focused on acute burden. Shigella-attributable moderate-to-severe diarrhoea has been shown to be associated with childhood linear growth faltering. Evidence also links less severe diarrhoea to linear growth faltering. As Shigella vaccines are in late stages of clinical development, we aimed to estimate the potential impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccination against Shigella burden that includes stunting and the acute burden attributable to less severe diarrhoea and moderate-to-severe diarrhoea. METHODS: We used a simulation model to estimate Shigella burden and potential vaccination in children aged 5 years or younger from 102 low-income to middle-income countries from 2025 to 2044. Our model included stunting associated with Shigella-related moderate-to-severe diarrhoea and less severe diarrhoea and we explored vaccination impact on health and economic outcomes. FINDINGS: We estimate 109 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 39-204) Shigella-attributable stunting cases and 1·4 million (0·8-2·1) deaths in unvaccinated children over 20 years. We project that Shigella vaccination could avert 43 million (13-92) stunting cases and 590 000 (297 000-983 000) deaths over 20 years. The overall mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was US$849 (95% uncertainty interval 423-1575; median $790 [IQR 635-1005]) per disability-adjusted life-year averted. Vaccination was most cost-effective in the WHO African region and in low-income countries. Including the burden of Shigella-related less severe diarrhoea improved mean ICERs by 47-48% for these groups and substantially improved ICERs for other regions. INTERPRETATION: Our model suggests that Shigella vaccination would be a cost-effective intervention, with a substantial impact in specific countries and regions. Other regions could potentially benefit upon the inclusion of the burden of Shigella-related stunting and less severe diarrhoea in the analysis. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust.

Projecting the long-term economic benefits of reducing Shigella-attributable linear growth faltering with a potential vaccine: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Linear growth is an important outcome of child development with implications for economic productivity. Enteric infections, particularly Shigella, have been linked to linear growth faltering (LGF). However, benefits from potential reductions in LGF are rarely included in economic analyses of enteric infections. We aimed to quantify the economic benefits of vaccination related to reduced Shigella-attributable disease and associated LGF compared with the net costs of a vaccine programme. METHODS: In this benefit-cost analysis, we modelled productivity benefits in 102 low-income and middle-income countries that had recent stunting estimates available, at least one Shigella-attributable death annually, and available economic data, particularly on gross national income and growth rate projections. We modelled benefits strictly related to linear growth improvements and no other benefits associated with reducing diarrhoeal burden. The effect size in each country was calculated as shifts in height-for-age Z score (HAZ), representing population average changes for preventing Shigella-attributable less-severe diarrhoea and moderate-to-severe diarrhoea separately for children younger than 5 years. Benefits data were calculated per country and combined with estimated net costs of the vaccine programme in the form of benefit-cost ratios (BCRs); BCRs above parity, or $1 in benefits per $1 in costs (with a 10% margin representing borderline results: 1·10:1), were considered cost-beneficial. Countries were aggregated for analysis by WHO region, World Bank income category, and eligibility for support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. FINDINGS: In the base-case scenario, all regions exhibited cost-beneficial results, with the South-East Asia region and Gavi-eligible countries exhibiting the highest BCRs (21·67 for the South-East Asia region and 14·45 for Gavi-eligible countries), and the Eastern Mediterranean region yielding the lowest BCRs (2·90). All regions exhibited cost-beneficial results from vaccination, except in more conservative scenarios (eg, those assuming early retirement ages and higher discount rates). Our findings were sensitive to assumed returns for increased height, assumptions about vaccine efficacy against linear growth detriments, the anticipated shift in HAZ, and discount rate. Incorporating the productivity benefits of LGF reduction into existing cost-effectiveness estimates resulted in longer-term cost-savings in nearly all regions. INTERPRETATION: LGF is a secondary outcome of Shigella infection and reduction in LGF is not often quantified as a health or economic benefit of vaccination. However, even under conservative assumptions, a Shigella vaccine only moderately effective against LGF could pay for itself from productivity gains alone in some regions. We recommend that LGF be considered in future models assessing the economic and health impacts of interventions preventing enteric infections. Further research is needed on vaccine efficacy against LGF to inform such models. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust.

A multi-country, prospective cohort study to evaluate the economic implications of relapse among children recovered from severe acute malnutrition: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Community-based management of acute malnutrition (CMAM) is an effective intervention at recovering children from severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and preventing mortality. However, there is growing evidence that for many children recovery is not sustained post-discharge. This study will assess the economic implications of relapse by calculating the average cost of treating a case of SAM that relapses after initial CMAM treatment compared to the cost of a case that remains recovered for 6 months post-discharge. METHODS: This protocol outlines the methods for a cost-efficiency analysis to assess cost per episode of treatment for acute malnutrition for children enrolled in CMAM programs for initial SAM treatment in Mali, Somalia and South Sudan. Cost data will be collected and analyzed on a monthly basis for each CMAM service component (outpatient treatment program for SAM, supplementary feeding program for moderate acute malnutrition, and inpatient stabilization care for SAM with medical complications). Financial data will be extracted from expenditure records from institutional accounting systems where possible. Where these are not present, cost data will be collected via interview and review of financial documents. Staff time allocation interviews will be conducted. This data will be applied to quantify personnel costs, to apportion costs that are shared between programs and to exclude staff time spent on research activities. DISCUSSION: This study will provide the first estimates to address the limited evidence on the economic implications of SAM relapse in CMAM programs. Data from this economic analysis will help raise awareness and provide actionable data for the global nutrition community to address the financial burden of relapse. Estimating the cost of relapse in three countries representing different geographic and operational contexts will help in generalizing these results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration # IORG0007116, Date of registration: 06/09/2020. This study is not registered as a clinical trial as it is observational research and does not include an intervention. The study has received the required ethical approvals as outlined in the declarations.

Could a Shigella vaccine impact long-term health outcomes?: Summary report of an expert meeting to inform a Shigella vaccine public health value proposition, March 24 and 29, 2021.

Shigellosis is a leading cause of diarrhea and dysentery in young children from low to middle-income countries and adults experiencing traveler's diarrhea worldwide. In addition to acute illness, infection by Shigella bacteria is associated with stunted growth among children, which has been linked to detrimental long-term health, developmental, and economic outcomes. On March 24 and 29, 2021, PATH convened an expert panel to discuss the potential impact of Shigella vaccines on these long-term outcomes. Based on current empirical evidence, this discussion focused on whether Shigella vaccines could potentially alleviate the long-term burden associated with Shigella infections. Also, the experts provided recommendations about how to best model the burden, health and vaccine impact, and economic consequences of Shigella infections. This international multidisciplinary panel included 13 scientists, physicians, and economists from multiple relevant specialties. According to the panel, while the relationship between Shigella infections and childhood growth deficits is complex, this relationship likely exists. Vaccine probe studies are the crucial next step to determine whether vaccination could ameliorate Shigella infection-related long-term impacts. Infants should be vaccinated during their first year of life to maximize their protection from severe acute health outcomes and ideally reduce stunting risk and subsequent negative long-term developmental and health impacts. With vaccine schedule crowding, targeted or combination vaccination approaches would likely increase vaccine uptake in high-burden areas. Shigella impact and economic assessment models should include a wider range of linear growth outcomes. Also, these models should produce a spectrum of results-ones addressing immediate benefits for usual health care decision-makers and others that include broader health impacts, providing a more comprehensive picture of vaccination benefits. While many of the underlying mechanisms of this relationship need better characterization, the remaining gaps can be best addressed by collecting data post-vaccine introduction or through large trials.

Measurement of benefits in economic evaluations of nutrition interventions in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

Economic evaluation of nutrition interventions that compares the costs to benefits is essential to priority-setting. However, there are unique challenges to synthesizing the findings of multi-sectoral nutrition interventions due to the diversity of potential benefits and the methodological differences among sectors in measuring them. This systematic review summarises literature on the interventions, sectors, benefit terminology and benefit types included in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and benefit-cost analyses (CEA, CUA and BCA, respectively) of nutrition interventions in low- and middle-income countries. A systematic search of five databases published from January 2010 to September 2019 with expert consultation yielded 2794 studies, of which 93 met all inclusion criteria. Eighty-seven per cent of the included studies included interventions delivered from only one sector, with almost half from the health sector (43%), followed by food/agriculture (27%), water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) (10%), and social protection (8%). Only 9% of studies assessed programmes involving more than one sector (health, food/agriculture, social protection and/or WASH). Eighty-one per cent of studies used more than one term to refer to intervention benefits. The included studies calculated 128 economic evaluation ratios (57 CEAs, 39 CUAs and 32 BCAs), and the benefits they included varied by sector. Nearly 60% measured a single benefit category, most frequently nutritional status improvements; other health benefits, cognitive/education gains, dietary diversity, food security, knowledge/attitudes/practices and income were included in less than 10% of all ratios. Additional economic evaluation of non-health and multi-sector interventions, and incorporation of benefits beyond nutritional improvements (including cost savings) in future economic evaluations is recommended.

Disability-adjusted life years for severe acute malnutrition: implications of alternative model specifications.

OBJECTIVE: Reducing the burden of childhood severe acute malnutrition (SAM) is key to improving global child health outcomes. Assessing cost-effectiveness of nutrition interventions remains an important evidence gap. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) are a common indicator used in cost-effectiveness analyses. DALYs were established by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. Recent iterations of the GBD have changed the methods used to calculate DALYs by dropping age-weighting and discounting (AD) and updating disability weights (DW). Cost-effectiveness analyses may use either local or international standard life expectancies (LE). Changes in model specifications for calculating DALYs may have implications for cost-effectiveness analyses using DALYs, interpreting historical DALY estimates, and related resource allocation decisions. The present study aimed to quantify the magnitude of change in estimates of DALYs attributable to SAM given recent methodological changes. DESIGN: From secondary data analysis, using parameter values from routine programme monitoring data for two SAM treatment programmes and published literature, eight calculation models were created to estimate DALYs with and without AD, using different sets of DW, and local v. standard LE. RESULTS: Different DW had a marginal effect on DALY estimates. Different LE had a small effect when AD was used, but a large effect when AD was not used. CONCLUSIONS: DALY estimates are sensitive to the model used. This complicates comparisons between studies using different models and needs to be accounted for in decision making. It seems sensible for analyses to report results using models with and without AD and using local and standard LE.

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of interventions within a humanitarian organisation.

Cost-effectiveness analysis is increasingly relevant in humanitarian action. The cost of response has increased exponentially in the past decade, alongside concurrent donor budget restrictions. However, there remains limited comprehension and application of these methods in this field. This paper documents methods developed for use within Action Against Hunger, an international humanitarian organisation, in response to a lack of understanding of this topic within the humanitarian community and limited evidence of the cost-effectiveness of humanitarian action. These methods encompass costs to both implementing institutions and participating communities. Activity-based cost analyses are conducted to assess resources per programme activity. Cost-effectiveness is evaluated using successful programme outcomes, and uncertainty is appraised via sensitivity analysis. This paper aims to advance knowledge, stimulate discussion, and promote the adoption of cost-effectiveness methods for building the evidence base for humanitarian action, including consideration of community costs, to enable analytical outputs that are useful for managers and policymakers alike.

Costs and cost-effectiveness of three point-of-use water treatment technologies added to community-based treatment of severe acute malnutrition in Sindh Province, Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute malnutrition (SAM) is a major global public health concern. Despite the cost-effectiveness of treatment, ministries of health are often unable to commit the required funds which limits service coverage. OBJECTIVE: A randomised controlled trial was conducted in Sindh Province, Pakistan, to assess whether adding a point of use water treatment to the treatment of SAM without complications improved its cost-effectiveness. Three treatment strategies - chlorine disinfection (Aquatabs); flocculent disinfection (Procter and Gamble Purifier of Water [P&G PoW]) and Ceramic Filters - were compared to a standard SAM treatment protocol. METHODS: An institutional perspective was adopted for costing, considering the direct and indirect costs incurred by the provider. Combining the cost of SAM treatment and water treatment, an average cost per child was calculated for the combined interventions for each arm. The costs of water treatment alone and the incremental cost-effectiveness of each water treatment intervention were also assessed. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for Aquatabs was 24 US dollars (USD), making it the most cost-effective strategy. The P&G PoW arm was the next least expensive strategy, costing an additional 149 USD per additional child recovered, though it was also the least effective of the three intervention strategies. The Ceramic Filters intervention was the most costly strategy and achieved a recovery rate lower than the Aquatabs arm and marginally higher than the P&G PoW arm. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the addition of a chlorine or flocculent disinfection point-of-use drinking water treatment intervention to the treatment of SAM without complications reduced the cost per child recovered compared to standard SAM treatment. To inform the feasibility of future implementation, further research is required to understand the costs of government implementation and the associated costs to the community and beneficiary household of receiving such an intervention in comparison with the existing SAM treatment protocol.

Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition by lady health workers as compared to an outpatient therapeutic feeding programme in Sindh Province, Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: Due to the limited evidence of the cost-effectiveness of Community Health Workers (CHW) delivering treatment for severe acute malnutrition (SAM), there is a need to better understand the costs incurred by both implementing institutions and beneficiary households. This study assessed the costs and cost-effectiveness of treatment for cases of SAM without complications delivered by government-employed Lady Health Workers (LHWs) and complemented with non-governmental organisation (NGO) delivered outpatient facility-based care compared with NGO delivered outpatient facility-based care only alongside a two-arm randomised controlled trial conducted in Sindh Province, Pakistan. METHODS: An activity-based cost model was used, employing a societal perspective to include costs incurred by beneficiaries and the wider community. Costs were estimated through accounting records, interviews and informal group discussions. Cost-effectiveness was assessed for each arm relative to no intervention, and incrementally between the two interventions, providing information on both absolute and relative costs and effects. RESULTS: The cost per child recovered in outpatient facility-based care was similar to LHW-delivered care, at 363 USD and 382 USD respectively. An additional 146 USD was spent per additional child recovered by outpatient facilities compared to LHWs. Results of sensitivity analyses indicated considerable uncertainty in which strategy was most cost-effective due to small differences in cost and recovery rates between arms. The cost to the beneficiary household of outpatient facility-based care was double that of LHW-delivered care. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient facility-based care was found to be slightly more cost-effective compared to LHW-delivered care, despite the potential for cost-effectiveness of CHWs managing SAM being demonstrated in other settings. The similarity of cost-effectiveness outcomes between the two models resulted in uncertainty as to which strategy was the most cost-effective. Similarity of costs and effectiveness between models suggests that whether it is appropriate to engage LHWs in substituting or complementing outpatient facilities may depend on population needs, including coverage and accessibility of existing services, rather than be purely a consideration of cost. Future research should assess the cost-effectiveness of LHW-delivered care when delivered solely by the government. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03043352 , ClinicalTrials.gov. Retrospectively registered.

The cost of preventing undernutrition: cost, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of three cash-based interventions on nutrition outcomes in Dadu, Pakistan.

Cash-based interventions (CBIs) increasingly are being used to deliver humanitarian assistance and there is growing interest in the cost-effectiveness of cash transfers for preventing undernutrition in emergency contexts. The objectives of this study were to assess the costs, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness in achieving nutrition outcomes of three CBIs in southern Pakistan: a 'double cash' (DC) transfer, a 'standard cash' (SC) transfer and a 'fresh food voucher' (FFV) transfer. Cash and FFVs were provided to poor households with children aged 6-48 months for 6 months in 2015. The SC and FFV interventions provided $14 monthly and the DC provided $28 monthly. Cost data were collected via institutional accounting records, interviews, programme observation, document review and household survey. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per case of wasting, stunting and disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Beneficiary costs were higher for the cash groups than the voucher group. Net total cost transfer ratios (TCTRs) were estimated as 1.82 for DC, 2.82 for SC and 2.73 for FFV. Yet, despite the higher operational costs, the FFV TCTR was lower than the SC TCTR when incorporating the participation cost to households, demonstrating the relevance of including beneficiary costs in cost-efficiency estimations. The DC intervention achieved a reduction in wasting, at $4865 per case averted; neither the SC nor the FFV interventions reduced wasting. The cost per case of stunting averted was $1290 for DC, $882 for SC and $883 for FFV. The cost per DALY averted was $641 for DC, $434 for SC and $563 for FFV without discounting or age weighting. These interventions are highly cost-effective by international thresholds. While it is debatable whether these resource requirements represent a feasible or sustainable investment given low health expenditures in Pakistan, these findings may provide justification for continuing Pakistan's investment in national social safety nets.

Costs and cost-efficiency of a mobile cash transfer to prevent child undernutrition during the lean season in Burkina Faso: a mixed methods analysis from the MAM'Out randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the costs and cost-efficiency of a mobile cash transfer implemented in Tapoa Province, Burkina Faso in the MAM'Out randomized controlled trial from June 2013 to December 2014, using mixed methods and taking a societal perspective by including costs to implementing partners and beneficiary households. METHODS: Data were collected via interviews with implementing staff from the humanitarian agency and the private partner delivering the mobile money, focus group discussions with beneficiaries, and review of accounting databases. Costs were analyzed by input category and activity-based cost centers. cost-efficiency was analyzed by cost-transfer ratios (CTR) and cost per beneficiary. Qualitative analysis was conducted to identify themes related to implementing electronic cash transfers, and barriers to efficient implementation. RESULTS: The CTR was 0.82 from a societal perspective, within the same range as other humanitarian transfer programs; however the intervention did not achieve the same degree of cost-efficiency as other mobile transfer programs specifically. Challenges in coordination between humanitarian and private partners resulted in long wait times for beneficiaries, particularly in the first year of implementation. Sensitivity analyses indicated a potential 6% reduction in CTR through reducing beneficiary wait time by one-half. Actors reported that coordination challenges improved during the project, therefore inefficiencies likely would be resolved, and cost-efficiency improved, as the program passed the pilot phase. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the time required to establish trusting relationships among actors, and to set up a network of cash points in remote areas, this analysis showed that mobile transfers hold promise as a cost-efficient method of delivering cash in this setting. Implementation by local government would likely reduce costs greatly compared to those found in this study context, and improve cost-efficiency especially by subsidizing expansion of mobile money network coverage and increasing cash distribution points in remote areas which are unprofitable for private partners.

The "ComPAS Trial" combined treatment model for acute malnutrition: study protocol for the economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Acute malnutrition is currently divided into severe (SAM) and moderate (MAM) based on level of wasting. SAM and MAM currently have separate treatment protocols and products, managed by separate international agencies. For SAM, the dose of treatment is allocated by the child's weight. A combined and simplified protocol for SAM and MAM, with a standardised dose of ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF), is being trialled for non-inferior recovery rates and may be more cost-effective than the current standard protocols for treating SAM and MAM. METHOD: This is the protocol for the economic evaluation of the ComPAS trial, a cluster-randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial that compares a novel combined protocol for treating uncomplicated acute malnutrition compared to the current standard protocol in South Sudan and Kenya. We will calculate the total economic costs of both protocols from a societal perspective, using accounting data, interviews and survey questionnaires. The incremental cost of implementing the combined protocol will be estimated, and all costs and outcomes will be presented as a cost-consequence analysis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be calculated for primary and secondary outcome, if statistically significant. DISCUSSION: We hypothesise that implementing the combined protocol will be cost-effective due to streamlined logistics at clinic level, reduced length of treatment, especially for MAM, and reduced dosages of RUTF. The findings of this economic evaluation will be important for policymakers, especially given the hypothesised non-inferiority of the main health outcomes. The publication of this protocol aims to improve rigour of conduct and transparency of data collection and analysis. It is also intended to promote inclusion of economic evaluation in other nutrition intervention studies, especially for MAM, and improve comparability with other studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 30393230 , date: 16/03/2017.

Cost-effectiveness of the treatment of uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition by community health workers compared to treatment provided at an outpatient facility in rural Mali.

BACKGROUND: The Malian Nutrition Division of the Ministry of Health and Action Against Hunger tested the feasibility of integrating treatment of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) into the existing Integrated Community Case Management package delivered by community health workers (CHWs). This study assessed costs and cost-effectiveness of CHW-delivered care compared to outpatient facility-based care. METHODS: Activity-based costing methods were used, and a societal perspective employed to include all relevant costs incurred by institutions, beneficiaries and communities. The intervention and control arm enrolled different numbers of children so a modelled scenario sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of the two arms, assuming equal numbers of children enrolled. RESULTS: In the base case, with unequal numbers of children in each arm, for CHW-delivered care, the cost per child treated was 244 USD and cost per child recovered was 259 USD. Outpatient facility-based care was less cost-effective at 442 USD per child and 501 USD per child recovered. The conclusions of the analysis changed in the modelled scenario sensitivity analysis, with outpatient facility-based care being marginally more cost-effective (cost per child treated is 188 USD, cost per child recovered is 214 USD), compared to CHW-delivered care. This suggests that achieving good coverage is a key factor influencing cost-effectiveness of CHWs delivering treatment for SAM in this setting. Per week of treatment, households receiving CHW-delivered care spent half of the time receiving treatment and three times less money compared with those receiving treatment from the outpatient facility. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports existing evidence that the delivery of treatment by CHWs is a cost-effective intervention, provided that good coverage is achieved. A major benefit of this strategy was the lower cost incurred by the beneficiary household when treatment is available in the community. Further research is needed on the implementation costs that would be incurred by the government to increase the operability of these results.

Big Numbers about Small Children: Estimating the Economic Benefits of Addressing Undernutrition.

Different approaches have been used to estimate the economic benefits of reducing undernutrition and to estimate the costs of investing in such programs on a global scale. While many of these studies are ultimately based on evidence from well-designed efficacy trials, all require a number of assumptions to project the impact of such trials to larger populations and to translate the value of the expected improvement in nutritional status into economic terms. This paper provides a short critique of some approaches to estimating the benefits of investments in child nutrition and then presents an alternative set of estimates based on different core data. These new estimates reinforce the basic conclusions of the existing literature: the economic value from reducing undernutrition in undernourished populations is likely to be substantial.

The REFANI-N study protocol: a cluster-randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early initiation and longer duration of emergency/seasonal unconditional cash transfers for the prevention of acute malnutrition among children, 6-59 months, in Tahoua, Niger.

BACKGROUND: The global burden of acute malnutrition among children remains high, and prevalence rates are highest in humanitarian contexts such as Niger. Unconditional cash transfers are increasingly used to prevent acute malnutrition in emergencies but lack a strong evidence base. In Niger, non-governmental organisations give unconditional cash transfers to the poorest households from June to September; the 'hunger gap'. However, rising admissions to feeding programmes from March/April suggest the intervention may be late. METHODS/DESIGN: This cluster-randomised controlled trial will compare two types of unconditional cash transfer for 'very poor' households in 'vulnerable' villages defined and identified by the implementing organisation. 3,500 children (6-59 months) and 2,500 women (15-49 years) will be recruited exhaustively from households targeted for cash and from a random sample of non-recipient households in 40 villages in Tahoua district. Clusters of villages with a common cash distribution point will be assigned to either a control group which will receive the standard intervention (n = 10), or a modified intervention group (n = 10). The standard intervention is 32,500 FCFA/month for 4 months, June to September, given cash-in-hand to female representatives of 'very poor' households. The modified intervention is 21,500 FCFA/month for 5 months, April, May, July, August, September, and 22,500 FCFA in June, providing the same total amount. In both arms the recipient women attend an education session, women and children are screened and referred for acute malnutrition treatment, and the households receive nutrition supplements for children 6-23 months and pregnant and lactating women. The trial will evaluate whether the modified unconditional cash transfer leads to a reduction in acute malnutrition among children 6-59 months old compared to the standard intervention. The sample size provides power to detect a 5 percentage point difference in prevalence of acute malnutrition between trial arms. Quantitative and qualitative process evaluation data will be prospectively collected and programme costs will be collected and cost-effectiveness ratios calculated. DISCUSSION: This randomised study design with a concurrent process evaluation will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of earlier initiation of seasonal unconditional cash transfer for the prevention of acute malnutrition, which will be generalisable to similar humanitarian situations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN25360839, registered March 19, 2015.

The REFANI Pakistan study--a cluster randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cash-based transfer programmes on child nutrition status: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Cash-based transfer programmes are an emerging strategy in the prevention of wasting in children, especially targeted at vulnerable households during periods of food insecurity or during emergencies. However, the evidence surrounding the use of either cash or voucher transfer programmes in the humanitarian context and on nutritional outcomes is elusive. More evidence is needed not only to inform the global community of practice on best practices in humanitarian settings, but also to help strengthen national mitigation responses. METHODS/DESIGN: The Research for Food Assistance on Nutrition Impact Pakistan study (REFANI-P) sets out to evaluate the impact of three cash-based interventions on nutritional outcomes in children aged less than five years from poor and very poor households in Dadu District. This four-arm parallel cluster randomised controlled trial is set among Action Against Hunger (ACF) programme villages in Dadu District, Sindh Province. Mothers are the target recipients of either seasonal unconditional cash transfers or fresh food vouchers. A comparison group receives 'standard care' provided by the ACF programme to which all groups have the same access. The primary outcomes are prevalence of wasting and mean weight-for-height Z-score (WHZ) in children. Impact will be assessed at 6 months and at 1 year from baseline. Using a theory-based approach we will determine 'how' the different interventions work by looking at the processes involved and the impact pathways following the theory of change developed for this context. Quantitative and qualitative data are collected on morbidity, health seeking, hygiene and nutrition behaviours, dietary diversity, haemoglobin concentration, women's empowerment, household food security and expenditures and social capital. The direct and indirect costs of each intervention borne by the implementing organisation and their partners as well as by beneficiaries and their communities are also assessed. DISCUSSION: The results of this trial will provide robust evidence to help increase knowledge about the predictability of how different modalities of cash-based transfer work best to reduce the risk of child wasting during a season where food insecurity is at its highest. Evidence on costing and cost-effectiveness will further aid decisions on choice of modality in terms of effectiveness and sustainability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10761532 . Registered 26 March 2015.

Barriers to access for severe acute malnutrition treatment services in Pakistan and Ethiopia: a comparative qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To understand and compare the primary barriers households face when accessing treatment for cases of childhood severe acute malnutrition (SAM) in different cultural settings with different types of implementing agencies. DESIGN: The study presents a comparative qualitative analysis of two SAM treatment services, selected to include: (i) one programme implemented by a non-governmental organization and one by a Ministry of Health; and (ii) programmes considered to be successful, defined as either coverage level achieved or extent of integration within government infrastructure. Results from individual interviews and group discussions were recorded and analysed for themes in barriers to access. SETTING: Sindh Province, Pakistan; Tigray Region, Ethiopia. SUBJECTS: Beneficiary communities and staff of SAM treatment services in two countries. RESULTS: Common barriers were related to distance, high opportunity costs, knowledge of services, knowledge of malnutrition and child's refusal of ready-to-use foods. While community sensitization mechanisms were generally strong in these well-performing programmes, in remote areas with less programme exposure, beneficiaries experienced barriers to remaining in the programme until their children recovered. CONCLUSIONS: Households experienced a number of barriers when accessing SAM treatment services. Integration of SAM treatment with other community-based interventions, as the UN recommends, can improve access to life-saving services. Efforts to integrate SAM treatment into national health systems should not neglect the community component of health systems and dedicated funding for the community component is needed to ensure access. Further research and policy efforts should investigate feasible mechanisms to effectively reduce barriers to access and ensure equitable service delivery.