Economic evaluation of interventions to address undernutrition: a systematic review

The costs of Suaahara II, a complex scaled-up multisectoral nutrition programme in Nepal

Limited evidence exists on the costs of scaled-up multisectoral nutrition programmes. Such evidence is crucial to assess intervention value and affordability. Evidence is also lacking on the opportunity costs of implementers and participants engaging in community-level interventions. We help to fill this gap by estimating the full financial and economic costs of the United States Agency for International Development-funded Suaahara II (SII) programme, a scaled-up multisectoral nutrition programme in Nepal (2016-2023). We applied a standardized mixed methods costing approach to estimate total and unit costs over a 3.7-year implementation period. Financial expenditure data from national and subnational levels were combined with economic cost estimates assessed using in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with staff, volunteers, community members, and government partners in four representative districts. The average annual total cost was US$908,948 per district, with economic costs accounting for 47% of the costs. The annual unit cost was US$132 per programme participant (mother in the 1000-day period between conception and a child's second birthday) reached. Annual costs ranged from US$152 (mountains) to US$118 (plains) per programme participant. Personnel (63%) were the largest input cost driver, followed by supplies (11%). Community events (29%) and household counselling visits (17%) were the largest activity cost drivers. Volunteer cadres contributed significant time to the programme, with female community health volunteers spending a substantial amount of time (27 h per month) on SII activities. Multisectoral nutrition programmes can be costly, especially when taking into consideration volunteer and participant opportunity costs. This study provides much-needed evidence of the costs of scaled-up multisectoral nutrition programmes for future comparison against benefits.

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).

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.

The economic costs of a multisectoral nutrition programme implemented through a credit platform in Bangladesh

Bangladesh struggles with undernutrition in women and young children. Nutrition-sensitive agriculture programmes can help address rural undernutrition. However, questions remain on the costs of multisectoral programmes. This study estimates the economic costs of the Targeting and Re-aligning Agriculture to Improve Nutrition (TRAIN) programme, which integrated nutrition behaviour change and agricultural extension with a credit platform to support women's income generation. We used the Strengthening Economic Evaluation for Multisectoral Strategies for Nutrition (SEEMS-Nutrition) approach. The approach aligns costs with a multisectoral nutrition typology, identifying inputs and costs along programme impact pathways. We measure and allocate costs for activities and inputs, combining expenditures and micro-costing. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected retrospectively from implementers and beneficiaries. Expenditure data and economic costs were combined to calculate incremental economic costs. The intervention was designed around a randomised control trial. Incremental costs are presented by treatment arm. The total incremental cost was $795,040.34 for a 3.5-year period. The annual incremental costs per household were US$65.37 (Arm 2), USD$114.15 (Arm 3) and $157.11 (Arm 4). Total costs were led by nutrition counselling (37%), agriculture extension (12%), supervision (12%), training (12%), monitoring and evaluation (9%) and community events (5%). Total input costs were led by personnel (68%), travel (12%) and supplies (7%). This study presents the total incremental costs of an agriculture-nutrition intervention implemented through a microcredit platform. Costs per household compare favourably with similar interventions. Our results illustrate the value of a standardised costing approach for comparison with other multisectoral nutrition interventions.

Economic Evaluation of Nutrition-Sensitive Agricultural Interventions to Increase Maternal and Child Dietary Diversity and Nutritional Status in Rural Odisha, India

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations of nutrition-sensitive agriculture (NSA) interventions are scarce, limiting assessment of their potential affordability and scalability.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted cost-consequence analyses of 3 participatory video-based interventions of fortnightly women's group meetings using the following platforms: 1) NSA videos; 2) NSA and nutrition-specific videos; or 3) NSA videos with a nutrition-specific participatory learning and action (PLA) cycle.

METHODS

Interventions were tested in a 32-mo, 4-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial, Upscaling Participatory Action and Videos for Agriculture and Nutrition (UPAVAN) in the Keonjhar district, Odisha, India. Impacts were evaluated in children aged 0-23 mo and their mothers. We estimated program costs using data collected prospectively from expenditure records of implementing and technical partners and societal costs using expenditure assessment data collected from households with a child aged 0-23 mo and key informant interviews. Costs were adjusted for inflation, discounted, and converted to 2019 US$.

RESULTS

Total program costs of each intervention ranged from US$272,121 to US$386,907. Program costs per pregnant woman or mother of a child aged 0-23 mo were US$62 for NSA videos, US$84 for NSA and nutrition-specific videos, and US$78 for NSA videos with PLA (societal costs: US$125, US$143, and US$122, respectively). Substantial shares of total costs were attributable to development and delivery of the videos and PLA (52-69%) and quality assurance (25-41%). Relative to control, minimum dietary diversity was higher in the children who underwent the interventions incorporating nutrition-specific videos and PLA (adjusted RRs: 1.19 and 1.27; 95% CIs: 1.03-1.37 and 1.11, 1.46, respectively). Relative to control, minimum dietary diversity in mothers was higher in those who underwent NSA video (1.21 [1.01, 1.45]) and NSA with PLA (1.30 [1.10, 1.53]) interventions.

CONCLUSION

NSA videos with PLA can increase both maternal and child dietary diversity and have the lowest cost per unit increase in diet diversity. Building on investments made in developing UPAVAN, cost-efficiency at scale could be increased with less intensive monitoring, reduced startup costs, and integration within existing government programs. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as ISRCTN65922679.

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.

Current economic evaluations often underestimate the total sum of benefits that can arise from nutrition interventions. Comprehensive benefit measurement of some nutrition programmes may require further methodological research.

In the near‐term, economic evaluations of multi‐sectoral nutrition interventions should include potential cost savings from improved nutrition in their calculations and assess the potential for benefits unrelated to nutrition. If the range of benefits is diverse and can be monetised, benefit‐cost analysis may be the preferred evaluation method.

Economic evaluations of nutrition‐sensitive interventions from agriculture, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), and gender empowerment sectors, are needed to fill an evidence gap on costs and benefits of multisectoral approaches to improved maternal and child health and nutrition.

Economic evaluation of an early childhood development center–based agriculture and nutrition intervention in Malawi

Malnutrition is a leading cause of death and disability among children in low-income countries. Nutrition-sensitive interventions show promise in increasing food access and improving diets. There are possible synergies of integrating these programs with other sectors, improving effectiveness by leveraging resources. However, economic evaluations of these multi-sectoral programs are limited. We aimed to estimate the cost efficiency, cost-effectiveness, benefit-cost ratio, and net benefit of using community-based early childhood development (ECD) centers as platforms for an intervention promoting agricultural production and nutrition among households with young children in Malawi. The intervention was costed using bottom-up micro-costing and top-down expenditure analysis with a societal perspective and a 12-month horizon. Effectiveness estimates were derived from a cluster-randomized control trial. Premature deaths and stunting cases averted were estimated using the Lived Saved Tool. We calculated DALYs averted, and the value of three benefits streams resulting from reductions in premature mortality, increases in lifetime productivity and household agricultural productivity. We transferred the US value of a statistical life (VSL) to Malawi using an income elasticity of 1.5, and a 10% discount rate. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted using a Monte Carlo model. The intervention cost $197,377, reaching 4,806 beneficiaries at $41 per beneficiary, $595 per case of stunting, $18,310 per death, and $516 per DALY averted. Net benefit estimates ranged from $507,589 to $4,678,258, and benefit-cost ratios from 3.57 to 24.70. Sensitivity analyses confirmed a positive return on investment. Implementing agriculture-nutrition interventions through ECD platforms may be an efficient use of resources in Malawi and similar contexts.