Methodological choices for an economic evaluation of a combined psychosocial and nutrition treatment intervention for children with severe acute malnutrition: The FUSAM trial in Nepal.

As a public health burden, severe acute malnutrition (SAM) among children has been increasingly studied to determine the optimal combination of treatment approaches. Among the new approaches is the addition of early childhood development sessions to standard nutrition-based treatment for SAM which can enhance both nutrition and development outcomes among young children. However, few studies demonstrate the relationship between the costs of such combined programs and the benefits accrued to the children and their caregivers. This article describes our experience of designing and conducting an economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomized controlled trial assessing a combined nutrition and psychosocial intervention for the treatment of SAM in children aged 6-24 months in Nepal. We present key lessons learned regarding methodological choices, the challenges of field data collection, as well as study adjustment when data analysis did not unfold as anticipated. With the view to transparency, this manuscript provides some clarifications on the evaluation processes for funders and policy makers on what economic evaluations entail and what information they convey for the purpose of supporting policy decision-making around limited resource allocation.

Ensuring equity in mental health and psychosocial support during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Populations affected by armed conflict and other humanitarian crises are at elevated risk for mental health problems. While the COVID-19 pandemic has had broadly deleterious effects on livelihoods, economic well-being, and population health worldwide, vulnerable groups have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. Providing mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) services during these times to vulnerable groups, especially in low- and middle-income countries and humanitarian settings, is essential. In an effort to comply with the public health response to the pandemic and mitigate COVID-19 transmission, significant implementation adaptations were made to service delivery during the pandemic. This short report describes several strategies to ensure that equity was central to these adaptations and public health responses, and provides recommendations for ensuring continuity of this progress post-pandemic. Examples and key lessons learned are given related to strategies to increase access to MHPSS services, improve meaningful stakeholder engagement, develop and support community networks, and implement community-based psychosocial support groups. They come from diverse settings of Bangladesh, Colombia, Ecuador, and Lebanon. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of preventing and treating MHPSS issues. It also has created opportunities for innovative programming to address overlooked problems, improve the quality of services provided, and increase focus on equity. It is vital that we use the momentum and attention generated around MHPSS services during the COVID-19 pandemic to continue to build and improve existing MHPSS services in more equitable ways for vulnerable populations.

Breastfeeding assessment tools for at-risk and malnourished infants aged under 6 months old: a systematic review.

Background: Many small and malnourished infants under 6 months of age have problems with breastfeeding and restoring effective exclusive breastfeeding is a common treatment goal. Assessment is a critical first step of case management, but most malnutrition guidelines do not specify how best to do this. We aimed to identify breastfeeding assessment tools for use in assessing at-risk and malnourished infants in resource-poor settings. Methods: We systematically searched: Medline and Embase; Web of Knowledge; Cochrane Reviews; Eldis and Google Scholar databases. Also the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF), CAse REport guidelines, Emergency Nutrition Network, and Field Exchange websites. Assessment tool content was analysed using a framework describing breastfeeding 'domains' (baby's behaviour; mother's behaviour; position; latching; effective feeding; breast health; baby's health; mother's view of  feed; number, timing and length of feeds). Results: We identified 29 breastfeeding assessment tools and 45 validation studies. Eight tools had not been validated. Evidence underpinning most tools was low quality and mainly from high-income countries and hospital settings. The most comprehensive tools were the Breastfeeding, Evaluation and Education Tool, UNICEF Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative tools and CARE training package. The tool with the strongest evidence was the WHO/UNICEF B-R-E-A-S-T-Feed Observation Form. Conclusions: Despite many possible tools, there is currently no one gold standard. For assessing malnourished infants in resource-poor settings, UNICEF Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative tools, Module IFE and the WHO/UNICEF B-R-E-A-S-T-Feed Observation Form are the best available tools but could be improved by adding questions from other tools. Allowing for context, one tool for rapid community-based assessment plus a more detailed one for clinic/hospital assessment might help optimally identify breastfeeding problems and the support required. Further research is important to refine existing tools and develop new ones. Rigorous testing, especially against outcomes such as breastfeeding status and growth, is key.