Whole of government approaches to accelerate adolescent success: efficiency and financing considerations.

The multiple domains of development covered by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) present a practical challenge for governments. This is particularly acute in highly resource-constrained settings which use a sector-by-sector approach to structure financing and prioritization. One potentially under-prioritized solution is to implement interventions with the potential to simultaneously improve multiple outcomes across sectors, what United Nations Development Programme refer to as development 'accelerators'. An increasing number of accelerators are being identified in the literature. There are, however, challenges associated with the evaluation and implementation of accelerators. First, as accelerators have multiple benefits, possibly in different sectors, they will be undervalued if the priority setting is conducted sector-by-sector. Second, even if their value is recognized, accelerators may not be adopted if doing so clashes with any of the multiple competing interests policymakers consider, of which efficiency/social desirability is but one. To illustrate the first challenge, and outline a possible solution, we conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the implementation of three sector-specific interventions to an accelerator, first using a sector-by-sector planning perspective, then a whole of government approach. The case study demonstrates how evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions sector-by-sector can lead to suboptimal efficiency rankings and overlook interventions that are efficient from a whole of government perspective. We then examine why recommendations based on a whole of government approach to evaluation are unlikely to be heeded. To overcome this second challenge, we outline a menu of existing and novel financing mechanisms that aim to address the mismatch between political incentives and logistical constraints in the priority setting and the economic evaluation evidence for cost-effective accelerators. These approaches to financing accelerators have the potential to improve efficiency, and in doing so, progress towards the SDGs, by aligning political incentives more closely with recommendations based on efficiency rankings.

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of economic strengthening and parenting support for preventing violence against adolescents in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa: An economic modelling study using non-randomised data.

There is limited evidence around the cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce violence against children in low- and middle-income countries. We used a decision-analytic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of three intervention scenarios for reducing adolescent emotional, physical, and sexual abuse in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa. The intervention scenarios were: 1) Community grant outreach to link households to South Africa's Child Support Grant (CSG) if they are eligible, but not receiving it; 2) Group-based parenting support; and 3) Group-based parenting support 'plus' linkage to the CSG. We estimated average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) for intervention scenarios over a ten-year time horizon, and compared them to a South Africa-specific willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (USD3390). Health effects were expressed in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. Our model considered four combinations of routine service versus trial-based costing, and population-average versus high prevalence of violence. Under routine service costing, ACERs for grant outreach and parenting support were below the WTP threshold when considering a population-average prevalence of violence USD2850 (Lower: USD1840-Upper: USD10,500) and USD2620 (USD1520-USD9800) per DALY averted, respectively; and a high prevalence of violence USD1320 (USD908-USD5180) and USD1340 (USD758-USD4910) per DALY averted, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness of parenting support plus grant linkage relative to parenting support alone was USD462 (USD346-USD1610) and USD225 (USD150-USD811) per DALY averted at a population-average and high prevalence of violence, respectively. Under trial-based costing, only the ACER for grant outreach was below the WTP threshold when considering a high prevalence of violence USD2580 (USD1640-USD9370) per DALY averted. Confidence intervals for all ACERs crossed the WTP threshold. In conclusion, grant outreach and parenting support are likely to be cost-effective intervention scenarios for reducing violence against adolescents if they apply routine service costing and reach high risk groups. Combining parenting support with grant linkage is likely to be more cost-effective than parenting support alone.

Understanding accelerators to improve SDG-related outcomes for adolescents-An investigation into the nature and quantum of additive effects of protective factors to guide policy making.

Recent evidence has shown support for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) accelerator concept, which highlights the need to identify interventions or programmatic areas that can affect multiple sustainable development goals (SDGs) at once to boost their achievement. These data have also clearly shown enhanced effects when interventions are used in combination, above and beyond the effect of single interventions. However, detailed knowledge is now required on optimum combinations and relative gain in order to derive policy guidance. Which accelerators work for which outcomes, what combinations are optimum, and how many combinations are needed to maximise effect? The current study utilised pooled data from the Young Carers (n = 1402) and Child Community Care (n = 446) studies. Data were collected at baseline (n = 1848) and at a 1 to 1.5- year follow-up (n = 1740) from children and young adolescents aged 9-13 years, living in South Africa. Measures in common between the two databases were used to generate five accelerators (caregiver praise, caregiver monitoring, food security, living in a safe community, and access to community-based organizations) and to investigate their additive effects on 14 SDG-related outcomes. Predicted probabilities and predicted probability differences were calculated for each SDG outcome under the presence of none to five accelerators to determine optimal combinations. Results show that various accelerator combinations are effective, though different combinations are needed for different outcomes. Some accelerators ramified across multiple outcomes. Overall, the presence of up to three accelerators was associated with marked improvements over multiple outcomes. The benefit of targeting access to additional accelerators, with additional costs, needs to be weighed against the relative gains to be achieved with high quality but focused interventions. In conclusion, the current data show the detailed impact of various protective factors and provides implementation guidance for policy makers in targeting and distributing interventions to maximise effect and expenditure. Future work should investigate multiplicative effects and synergistic interactions between accelerators.

Can a combination of interventions accelerate outcomes to deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals for young children? Evidence from a longitudinal study in South Africa and Malawi.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to identify possible entry points for interventions that can act as development accelerators for children and adolescents in South Africa and Malawi. METHODS: This study was a secondary data analysis. Data were sourced from the Child Community Care longitudinal study which tracked child well-being outcomes among 989 children (4-13 years) and their caregivers affected by HIV and enrolled in community-based organizations in South Africa and Malawi. We examined associations between five hypothesized accelerating services/household provisions-measured as access at baseline and follow-up and 12 child outcomes that relate to indicators within the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework. We calculated the adjusted probabilities of experiencing each SDG aligned outcome conditional on receipt of single, combined or all identified accelerators. RESULTS: The results show household food security is associated with positive child education and cognitive development outcomes. Cash grants were positively associated with nutrition and cognitive development outcomes. Living in a safe community was positively associated with all mental health outcomes. Experiencing a combination of two factors was associated with higher probability of positive child outcomes. However, experiencing all three accelerators was associated with better child outcomes, compared with any of the individual factors by themselves with substantial improvements noted in child education outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Combined delivery of specific interventions or services may yield greater improvements in child outcomes across different developmental domains. It is recommended that multiple support avenues in combination like improving food security and safe communities, as well as social protection grants, should be provided for vulnerable children to maximize the impact.

Cash transfers to enhance TB control: lessons from the HIV response.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization prioritises a more holistic global response to end the tuberculosis (TB) epidemic by 2030. Based on experiences in the HIV response, social protection, and in particular cash transfers, show promise for contributing to this. Currently, individual-level evidence for the potential of cash transfers to prevent TB by addressing the structural social determinants of disease is lacking. To identify priority actions for the TB research agenda, we appraised efforts by the HIV response to establish the role of cash transfers in preventing HIV infection. MAIN BODY: The HIV response has evaluated the effects of cash transfers on risky sexual behaviours and HIV incidence. Work has also evaluated the added effects of supplementing cash transfers with psychosocial support. The HIV response has focused research on populations with disproportionate HIV risk, and used a mix of explanatory evaluations, which use ideal conditions, and pragmatic evaluations, which use operational conditions, to generate evidence that is both causally valid and applicable to the real world. It has always collaborated with multiple stakeholders in funding and evaluating projects. Learning from the HIV response, priority actions for the TB response should be to investigate the effect of cash transfers on intermediary social determinants of active TB disease, and TB incidence, as well as the added effects of supplementing cash transfers with psychosocial support. Work should be focused on key groups in high burden settings, and look to build a combination of explanatory and pragmatic evidence to inform policy decisions in this field. To achieve this, there is an urgent need to facilitate collaborations between groups interested in evaluating the impact of cash transfers on TB risk. CONCLUSIONS: The HIV response highlights several priority actions necessary for the TB response to establish the potential of cash transfers to prevent TB by addresing the structural social determinants of disease.

Comparison of two cash transfer strategies to prevent catastrophic costs for poor tuberculosis-affected households in low- and middle-income countries: An economic modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Illness-related costs for patients with tuberculosis (TB) ≥20% of pre-illness annual household income predict adverse treatment outcomes and have been termed "catastrophic." Social protection initiatives, including cash transfers, are endorsed to help prevent catastrophic costs. With this aim, cash transfers may either be provided to defray TB-related costs of households with a confirmed TB diagnosis (termed a "TB-specific" approach); or to increase income of households with high TB risk to strengthen their economic resilience (termed a "TB-sensitive" approach). The impact of cash transfers provided with each of these approaches might vary. We undertook an economic modelling study from the patient perspective to compare the potential of these 2 cash transfer approaches to prevent catastrophic costs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Model inputs for 7 low- and middle-income countries (Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Ghana, Mexico, Tanzania, and Yemen) were retrieved by literature review and included countries' mean patient TB-related costs, mean household income, mean cash transfers, and estimated TB-specific and TB-sensitive target populations. Analyses were completed for drug-susceptible (DS) TB-related costs in all 7 out of 7 countries, and additionally for drug-resistant (DR) TB-related costs in 1 of the 7 countries with available data. All cost data were reported in 2013 international dollars ($). The target population for TB-specific cash transfers was poor households with a confirmed TB diagnosis, and for TB-sensitive cash transfers was poor households already targeted by countries' established poverty-reduction cash transfer programme. Cash transfers offered in countries, unrelated to TB, ranged from $217 to $1,091/year/household. Before cash transfers, DS TB-related costs were catastrophic in 6 out of 7 countries. If cash transfers were provided with a TB-specific approach, alone they would be insufficient to prevent DS TB catastrophic costs in 4 out of 6 countries, and when increased enough to prevent DS TB catastrophic costs would require a budget between $3.8 million (95% CI: $3.8 million-$3.8 million) and $75 million (95% CI: $50 million-$100 million) per country. If instead cash transfers were provided with a TB-sensitive approach, alone they would be insufficient to prevent DS TB-related catastrophic costs in any of the 6 countries, and when increased enough to prevent DS TB catastrophic costs would require a budget between $298 million (95% CI: $219 million-$378 million) and $165,367 million (95% CI: $134,085 million-$196,425 million) per country. DR TB-related costs were catastrophic before and after TB-specific or TB-sensitive cash transfers in 1 out of 1 countries. Sensitivity analyses showed our findings to be robust to imputation of missing TB-related cost components, and use of 10% or 30% instead of 20% as the threshold for measuring catastrophic costs. Key limitations were using national average data and not considering other health and social benefits of cash transfers. CONCLUSIONS: A TB-sensitive cash transfer approach to increase all poor households' income may have broad benefits by reducing poverty, but is unlikely to be as effective or affordable for preventing TB catastrophic costs as a TB-specific cash transfer approach to defray TB-related costs only in poor households with a confirmed TB diagnosis. Preventing DR TB-related catastrophic costs will require considerable additional investment whether a TB-sensitive or a TB-specific cash transfer approach is used.