Treatment of moderate acute malnutrition through community health volunteers is a cost-effective intervention: Evidence from a resource-limited setting.

Treatment outcomes for acute malnutrition can be improved by integrating treatment into community case management (iCCM). However, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of this integrated nutrition intervention. The present study investigates the cost-effectiveness of treating moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) through community health volunteer (CHV) and integrating it with routine iCCM. A cost-effectiveness model compared the costs and effects of CHV sites plus health facility-based treatment (intervention) with the routine health facility-based treatment strategy alone (control). The costing assessments combined both provider and patient costs. The cost per DALY averted was the primary metric for the comparison, on which sensitivity analysis was performed. Additionally, the integrated strategy's relative value for money was evaluated using the most recent country-specific gross domestic product threshold metrics. The intervention dominated the health facility-based strategy alone on all computed cost-effectiveness outcomes. MAM treatment by CHVs plus health facilities was estimated to yield a cost per death and DALY averted of US$ 8743 and US$ 397, respectively, as opposed to US$ 13,846 and US$ 637 in the control group. The findings also showed that the intervention group spent less per child treated and recovered than the control group: US$ 214 versus US$ 270 and US$ 306 versus US$ 485, respectively. Compared with facility-based treatment, treating MAM by CHVs and health facilities was a cost-effective intervention. Additional gains could be achieved if more children with MAM are enrolled and treated.

The Livestock for Health Study: A Field Trial on Livestock Interventions to Prevent Acute Malnutrition Among Women and Children in Pastoralist Communities in Northern Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Livestock-dependent communities in Africa's drylands disproportionately experience acute malnutrition, especially during drought seasons. We detail the design and implementation of the Livestock for Health (L4H) study aimed at determining the effect of providing livestock feed and nutritional counselling to prevent seasonal spikes of acute malnutrition. METHODS: The L4H study employed a 3-arm cluster randomized controlled trial to compare households in pastoralist settings in northern Kenya receiving livestock feeds during critical dry periods, with or without nutritional counseling, with control households. Over 4 dry seasons, 2019 to 2021, the study collected data on household milk production, consumption patterns, mothers'/children's nutritional status, household socioeconomic status, herd dynamics, and human and animal health status every 6 weeks. RESULTS: L4H recruited 1734 households, with 639, 585, and 510 households assigned to intervention arms 1 and 2 and control arm 3, respectively. From these households, 1734 women and 1748 children younger than 3 years were recruited. In total, 19 419 household visits were completed, obtaining anthropometric measures 9 times on average for each child and mother. Eighty-one households (5%) were lost from the study due to the mother's death, child's death, migration, and withdrawal for other reasons. DISCUSSION: L4H's success in a challenging environment was possible due to strong community engagement, formative studies to inform trial design, collaboration with local authorities, and effective interdisciplinary collaboration. Subsequent manuscripts will report the study findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered October 29, 2020, and is online at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT04608656).