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

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.

Integration of Acute Malnutrition Treatment Into Integrated Community Case Management in Three Districts in Southern Mali: An Economic Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Enabling community health workers (CHWs) to treat acute malnutrition improves treatment access and coverage. However, data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of this approach is limited. We aimed to cost the treatment at scale and determine the cost-effectiveness of different levels of supervision and technical support.

METHODS

This economic evaluation was part of a prospective nonrandomized community intervention study in 3 districts in Mali examining the impact of different levels of CHW and health center supervision and support on treatment outcomes for children with severe acute malnutrition. Treatment admission and outcome data were extracted from the records of 120 participating health centers and 169 CHW sites. Cost data were collected from accountancy records and through key informant interviews. Results were presented as cost per child treated and cured. Modeled scenario sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine how cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness estimates change in an equal scale scenario and/or if the supervision had been done by government staff.

RESULTS

In the observed scenario, with an unequal number of children, the average cost per child treated was US$203.40 in Bafoulabé where a basic level of supervision and support was provided, US$279.90 in Kayes with a medium level of supervision, and US$253.9 in Kita with the highest level of supervision. Costs per child cured were US$303.90 in Bafoulabé, US$324.90 in Kayes, and US$311.80 in Kita, with overlapping uncertainty ranges.

CONCLUSION

Additional supervision has the potential to be a cost-effective strategy if supervision costs are reduced without compromising the quality of supervision. Further research should aim to better adapt the supervision model and associated tools to the context and investigate where efficiencies can be made in its delivery.

Cost-effectiveness of severe acute malnutrition treatment delivered by community health workers in the district of Mayahi, Niger

BACKGROUND

A non-randomized controlled trial, conducted from June 2018 to March 2019 in two rural communes in the health district of Mayahi in Niger, showed that including community health workers (CHWs) in the treatment of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) resulted in a better recovery rate (77.2% vs. 72.1%) compared with the standard treatment provided solely at the health centers. The present study aims to assess the cost and cost-effectiveness of the CHWs led treatment of uncomplicated SAM in children 6-59 months compared to the standard national protocol.

METHODS

To account for all relevant costs, the cost analysis included activity-based costing and bottom-up approaches from a societal perspective and on a within-trial time horizon. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted through a decision analysis network built with OpenMarkov and evaluated under two approaches: (1) with recovery rate and cost per child admitted for treatment as measures of effectiveness and cost, respectively; and (2) assessing the total number of children recovered and the total cost incurred. In addition, a multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the effect of uncertainty around the base case input data.

RESULTS

For the base case data, the average cost per child recovered was 116.52 USD in the standard treatment and 107.22 USD in the CHWs-led treatment. Based on the first approach, the CHWs-led treatment was more cost-effective than the standard treatment with an average cost per child admitted for treatment of 82.81 USD vs. 84.01 USD. Based on the second approach, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the transition from the standard to the CHWs-led treatment amounted to 98.01 USD per additional SAM case recovered.

CONCLUSIONS

In the district of Mayahi in Niger, the CHWs-led SAM treatment was found to be cost-effective when compared to the standard protocol and provided additional advantages such as the reduction of costs for households.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN with ID 31143316. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN31143316.

Costs and cost-effectiveness of treatment setting for children with wasting, oedema and growth failure/faltering: A systematic review

This systematic review aimed to address the existing evidence gaps, and guide policy decisions on the settings within which to treat infants <12 months of age with growth faltering/failure, and infants and children aged <60 months with moderate wasting or severe wasting and/or bilateral pitting oedema. Twelve electronic databases were searched for studies published before 10 December 2021. The searches yielded 16,709 records from which 31 studies were eligible and included in the review. Three studies were judged as low quality, whilst 14 were moderate and the remaining 14 were high quality. We identified very few cost and cost-effectiveness analyses for most of the models of care with the certainty of evidence being judged at very low or low. However, there were 17 cost and 6 cost-effectiveness analyses for the initiation of treatment in outpatient settings for severe wasting and/or bilateral pitting oedema in infants and children <60 months of age. From this evidence, the costs appear lowest for initiating treatment in community settings, followed by initiating treatment in community and transferring to outpatient settings, initiating treatment in outpatients then transferring to community settings, initiating treatment in outpatient settings, and lastly initiating treatment in inpatient settings. In addition, the evidence suggested that initiation of treatment in outpatient settings is highly cost-effective when compared to doing nothing or no programme implementation scenarios, using country-specific WHO GDP per capita thresholds. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $20 to $145 per DALY averted from a provider perspective, and $68 to $161 per DALY averted from a societal perspective. However, the certainty of the evidence was judged as moderate because of comparisons to do nothing/ no programme scenarios which potentially limits the applicability of the evidence in real-world settings. There is therefore a need for evidence that compare the different available alternatives.

Cost of Acute Malnutrition Treatment Using a Simplified or Standard Protocol in Diffa, Niger

Evidence on the cost of acute malnutrition treatment, particularly with regards to simplified approaches, is limited. The objective of this study was to determine the cost of acute malnutrition treatment and how it is influenced by treatment protocol and programme size. We conducted a costing study in Kabléwa and N'Guigmi, Diffa region, where children with acute malnutrition aged 6-59 months were treated either with a standard or simplified protocol, respectively. Cost data were collected from accountancy records and through key informant interviews. Programme data were extracted from health centre records. In Kabléwa, where 355 children were treated, the cost per child treated was USD 187.3 (95% CI: USD 171.4; USD 203.2). In N'Guigmi, where 889 children were treated, the cost per child treated was USD 110.2 (95% CI: USD 100.0; USD 120.3). Treatment of moderate acute malnutrition was cheaper than treatment of severe acute malnutrition. In a modelled scenario sensitivity analysis with an equal number of children in both areas, the difference in costs between the two locations was reduced from USD 77 to USD 11. Our study highlighted the significant impact of programme size and coverage on treatment costs, that cost can differ significantly between neighbouring locations, and that it can be reduced by using a simplified protocol.

Lay health workers in primary and community health care for maternal and child health: identification and treatment of wasting in children

BACKGROUND

Since the early 2010s, there has been a push to enhance the capacity to effectively treat wasting in children through community-based service delivery models and thus reduce morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of identification and treatment of moderate and severe wasting in children aged five years or under by lay health workers working in the community compared with health providers working in health facilities.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, two other databases, and two ongoing trials registers to 24 September 2021. We also screened the reference lists of related systematic reviews and all included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies in children aged five years or under with moderate wasting (defined as weight-for-height Z-score (WHZ) below -2 but no lower than ≥ -3, or mid-upper-arm circumference (MUAC) below 125 mm but no lower than 115 mm, and no nutritional oedema) or severe wasting (WHZ below -3 or MUAC below 115 mm or nutritional oedema). Eligible interventions were: • identification by lay health workers (LHWs) of children with wasting (intervention 1); • identification by LHWs of children with wasting and medical complications needing referral (intervention 2); and • identification by LHWs of children with wasting without medical complications needing referral (intervention 3). Eligible comparators were: • identification and treatment of wasting by health professionals such as nurses or doctors (at health facilities); and • identification and treatment of wasting by health facility-based teams, including health professionals and LHWs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) guidelines. We used a random-effects model to meta-analyse data, producing risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes in trials with individual allocation, adjusted RRs for dichotomous outcomes in trials with cluster allocation (using the generic inverse variance method in Review Manager 5), and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two RCTs and five non-RCTs. Six studies were from African countries, and one was from Pakistan. Six studies included children with severe wasting, and one included children with moderate wasting. All studies offered home-based ready-to-use therapeutic food treatment and monitoring. Children received antibiotics in three studies, vitamins or micronutrients in three studies, and deworming treatment in two studies. In three studies, the comparison arm involved LHWs screening children for malnutrition and referring them to health facilities for diagnosis and treatment. All the non-randomised studies had a high overall risk of bias. Interventions 1 and 2 Identification and referral for treatment by LHWs, compared with treatment by health professionals following self-referral, may result in little or no difference in the percentage of children who recover from moderate or severe wasting (MD 1.00%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.53 to 4.53; 1 RCT, 29,475 households; low certainty). Intervention 3 Compared with treatment by health professionals following identification by LHWs, identification and treatment of severe wasting in children by LHWs: • may slightly reduce improvement from severe wasting (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 1 RCT, 789 participants; low certainty); • may slightly increase non-response to treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.01; 1 RCT, 789 participants; low certainty); • may result in little or no difference in the number of children with WHZ above -2 on discharge (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.18; 1 RCT, 789 participants; low certainty); • probably results in little or no difference in the number of children with WHZ between -3 and -2 on discharge (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.36; 1 RCT, 789 participants; moderate certainty); • probably results in little or no difference in the number of children with WHZ below -3 (severe wasting) on discharge (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.04; 1 RCT, 789 participants; moderate certainty); • probably results in little or no difference in the number of children with MUAC equal to or greater than 115 mm on discharge (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 789 participants; moderate certainty); • results in little or no difference in weight gain per day (mean weight gain 0.50 g/kg/day higher, 95% CI 1.74 lower to 2.74 higher; 1 RCT, 571 participants; high certainty); • probably has little or no effect on relapse of severe wasting (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54; 1 RCT, 649 participants; moderate certainty); • may have little or no effect on mortality among children with severe wasting (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.98; 1 RCT, 829 participants; low certainty); • probably has little or no effect on the transfer of children with severe wasting to inpatient care (RR 3.71, 95% CI 0.36 to 38.23; 1 RCT, 829 participants; moderate certainty); and • probably has little or no effect on the default of children with severe wasting (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.40; 1 RCT, 829 participants; moderate certainty). The evidence was very uncertain for total MUAC gain, MUAC gain per day, total weight gain, treatment coverage, and transfer to another LHW site or health facility. No studies examined sustained recovery, deterioration to severe wasting, appropriate identification of children with wasting or oedema, appropriate referral of children with moderate or severe wasting, adherence, or adverse effects and other harms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Identification and treatment of severe wasting in children who do not require inpatient care by LHWs, compared with treatment by health professionals, may lead to similar or slightly poorer outcomes. We found only two RCTs, and the evidence from non-randomised studies was of very low certainty for all outcomes due to serious risks of bias and imprecision. No studies included children aged under 6 months. Future studies must address these methodological issues.

Cure rate and associated factors for children 6–59 months with severe acute malnutrition under the out patient therapeutic care programme in the health centres of Kabale District in Southwestern Uganda: a cross sectional study

Background

Severe acute malnutrition (SAM) is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among children below five years with sub-Saharan Africa being the most affected. In Kabale district, SAM affects 2.9% children under the age of five. Uganda government introduced Outpatient therapeutic care (OTC) programme in all health centre level III and IV of Kabale. However, there was limited information about the cure rate and its associated factors among children under the programme hence the cause for the study.

Methods

A retrospective cross-sectional study was carried out on records of children 6–59 months (n = 637), presenting with SAM on OTC programme in the health centres of Kabale between 2013 and 2015. Data on cure rate (outcome) and other independent factors were collected, cleaned in excel and then exported into STATA 12 for analysis. Univariate, bivariate and logistic regression analysis was run to generate frequencies and factors associated.

Results

The cure rate was 36.3% (n = 231 cases) with a median recovery time of 21 days. The default rate was 58.6% (n = 373 cases) while the non-response and death rate were 0.6% (n = 4) and 1.1% (n = 7) respectively. Source at admission (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 0.1, 95% CI 0.0, 0.7, p = 0.012), Weight at admission (AOR = 0.5, 95% CI 0.0, 0.9, p = 0.014) and Number of visits to the program (AOR = 14.9, 95% CI 9.3, 24.2, p = 0.040) were positively associated with cure rate of SAM children on OTC programme in Kabale.

Conclusion

Overall the cure and default rate for children on OTC programme in Kabale were significantly higher than national and international standards making the findings quite alarming. However, the weight of the child at admission, the number of visits to the programme to receive services and the source where the child was coming from were very important determinants of cure rate. To improve the cure rates of SAM children in Kabale, there is need for policy makers and programme implementers to think about a community based management of severe acute malnutrition program approach.

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 Evaluations of Child Nutrition Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal

Economic evaluation is crucial for cost-effective resource allocation to improve child nutrition in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, the quality of published economic evaluations in these settings is not well understood. This systematic review aimed to assess the quality of existing economic evaluations of child nutrition interventions in LMICs and synthesize the study characteristics and economic evidence. We searched 9 electronic databases, including MEDLINE, with the following concepts: economic evaluation, children, nutrition, and LMICs. All types of interventions addressing malnutrition, including stunting, wasting, micronutrient deficiency, and overweight, were identified. We included economic evaluations that examined both costs and effects published in English peer-reviewed journals and used the Drummond checklist for quality appraisal. We present findings through a narrative synthesis. Sixty-nine studies with diverse settings, perspectives, time horizons, and outcome measures were included. Most studies used data from sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia and addressed undernutrition. The mortality rate, intervention effect, intervention coverage, cost, and discount rate were reported as predictors among studies that performed sensitivity analyses. Despite the heterogeneity of included studies and the possibility of publication bias, 81% of included studies concluded that nutrition interventions were cost-effective or cost-beneficial, mostly based on a country's cost-effectiveness thresholds. Regarding quality assessment, the studies published after 2016 met more criteria than studies published before 2016. Most studies had well-stated research questions, forms of economic evaluation, interventions, and conclusions. However, reporting the perspective of the analyses, justification of discount rates, and describing the role of funders and ethics approval were identified as areas needing improvement. The gaps in the quality of reporting could be improved by consolidated guidance on the publication of economic evaluations and the use of appropriate quality appraisal checklists. Strengthening the evidence base for child malnutrition across different regions is necessary to inform cost-effective investment in LMICs. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42020194445.

Economic and cost-effectiveness analysis of the Community-Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) trials in India, Pakistan and Mozambique

Background

The Community-Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) trials (NCT01911494) in India, Pakistan and Mozambique (February 2014–2017) involved community engagement and task sharing with community health workers for triage and initial treatment of pregnancy hypertension. Maternal and perinatal mortality was less frequent among women who received ≥8 CLIP contacts. The aim of this analysis was to assess the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of the CLIP intervention overall in comparison to standard of care, and by PIERS (Pre-eclampsia Integrated Estimate of RiSk) On the Move (POM) mobile health application visit frequency.

Methods

Included were all women enrolled in the three CLIP trials who had delivered with known outcomes by trial end. According to the number of POM-guided home contacts received (0, 1–3, 4–7, ≥8), costs were collected from annual budgets and spending receipts, with inclusion of family opportunity costs in Pakistan. A decision tree model was built to determine the cost-effectiveness of the intervention (vs usual care), based on the primary clinical endpoint of years of life lost (YLL) for mothers and infants. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to assess uncertainty in the cost and clinical outcomes.

Results

The incremental per pregnancy cost of the intervention was US$12.66 (India), US$11.51 (Pakistan) and US$13.26 (Mozambique). As implemented, the intervention was not cost-effective due largely to minimal differences in YLL between arms. However, among women who received ≥8 CLIP contacts (four in Pakistan), the probability of health system and family (Pakistan) cost-effectiveness was ≥80% (all countries).

Conclusion

The intervention was likely to be cost-effective for women receiving ≥8 contacts in Mozambique and India, and ≥4 in Pakistan, supporting WHO guidance on antenatal contact frequency.

Trial registration number

NCT01911494.

Cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment for child undernutrition in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Background: Undernutrition remains highly prevalent in low- and middle-income countries, with sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia accounting for majority of the cases. Apart from the health and human capacity impacts on children affected by malnutrition, there are significant economic impacts to households and service providers. The aim of this study was to determine the current state of knowledge on costs and cost-effectiveness of child undernutrition treatment to households, health providers, organizations and governments in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods:  We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed studies in LMICs up to September 2019. We searched online databases including PubMed-Medline, Embase, Popline, Econlit and Web of Science. We identified additional articles through bibliographic citation searches. Only articles including costs of child undernutrition treatment were included.

Results: We identified a total of 6436 articles, and only 50 met the eligibility criteria. Most included studies adopted institutional/program (45%) and health provider (38%) perspectives. The studies varied in the interventions studied and costing methods used with treatment costs reported ranging between US$0.44 and US$1344 per child. The main cost drivers were personnel, therapeutic food and productivity loss. We also assessed the cost effectiveness of community-based management of malnutrition programs (CMAM). Cost per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted for a CMAM program integrated into existing health services in Malawi was $42. Overall, cost per DALY averted for CMAM ranged between US$26 and US$53, which was much lower than facility-based management (US$1344).

Conclusion: There is a need to assess the burden of direct and indirect costs of child undernutrition to households and communities in order to plan, identify cost-effective solutions and address issues of cost that may limit delivery, uptake and effectiveness. Standardized methods and reporting in economic evaluations would facilitate interpretation and provide a means for comparing costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions.

Cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment for child undernutrition in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Background: Undernutrition remains highly prevalent in low- and middle-income countries, with sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia accounting for majority of the cases. Apart from the health and human capacity impacts on children affected by malnutrition, there are significant economic impacts to households and service providers. The aim of this study was to determine the current state of knowledge on costs of child undernutrition treatment to households, health providers, organizations and governments in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods:  We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed studies in LMICs up to September 2019. We searched online databases including PubMed-Medline, Embase, Popline, Econlit and Web of Science. We identified additional articles through bibliographic citation searches. Only articles including costs of child undernutrition treatment were included. Results: We identified a total of 6436 articles, and only 50 met the eligibility criteria. Most included studies adopted  institutional/program (45%) and health provider (38%) perspectives. The studies varied in the interventions studied and costing methods used with treatment costs reported ranging between US$0.44 and US$1344 per child. The main cost drivers were personnel, therapeutic food and productivity loss. Conclusion: There is a need to assess the burden of direct and indirect costs of child undernutrition to households and communities in order to plan, identify cost-effective solutions and address issues of cost that may limit delivery, uptake and effectiveness. Standardized methods and reporting in economic evaluations would facilitate interpretation and provide a means for comparing costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions.

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.