Cost-effectiveness analysis of the diarrhea alleviation through zinc and oral rehydration therapy (DAZT) program in rural Gujarat India: an application of the net-benefit regression framework

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.

Economic evaluation of interventions to address undernutrition: a systematic review

Strategies to address undernutrition in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) include various interventions implemented through different sectors of the economy. Our aim is to provide an overview of published economic evaluations of such interventions and to compare and contrast evaluations of interventions in different areas. We reviewed economic evaluations of nutrition interventions in LMICs published since 2015 and/or included in the Tufts Global registry or Disease Control Priorities 3rd edition. We categorized the studies by intervention type (preventive; therapeutic; fortification; delivery platforms), nutritional deficiency addressed and characteristics of the economic evaluation (e.g. type of model, costs and outcomes included). Of the 62 economic evaluations identified, 56 (90%) were cost-effectiveness analyses. Twenty-two (36%) evaluations investigated fortification and 23 (37%) preventive interventions. Forty-three percent of the evaluations of preventive interventions did not include a model, whereas most of fortification strategies used the same reference model. We identified different trends in cost categories and inclusion of health and non-health outcomes across evaluations in the four different topic areas. To illustrate the implications of such trends for decision-making, we compared a set of studies evaluating alternative strategies to combat zinc deficiency. We showed that the use of ‘off-the-shelf’ models and tools can potentially conceal what outcomes and costs and value judgements are used. Comparing interventions across different areas is fundamental to assist decision-makers in developing their nutrition strategy. Systematic differences in the economic evaluations of interventions delivered within and outside the health sector can undermine the ability to prioritize alternative nutrition strategies.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Community Case Management of Childhood Diarrhea in Burundi

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of community case management (CCM) program of childhood diarrhea by providing oral rehydration salts and zinc through community health workers in Burundi.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis study using a Markov modeling approach was undertaken to assess the CCM program of diarrhea from both provider and societal perspectives. The CCM program was compared with the routine management of childhood diarrhea at health facilities. Primary data on the cost of childhood diarrhea management were collected. Both economic and health outcomes were assessed for a period of 5 years, and a discount rate of 3% was applied. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The CCM program was found to be both less costly and more effective resulting to a negative value of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, indicating that the program was dominant producing cost savings. Compared with the routine treatment of diarrhea at health facilities, the CCM program would avert 2749 additional disability-adjusted life years over a period of 5 years. The economic burden was reduced of US$1 056 699 and US$2 328 531 from the provider and societal perspectives, respectively. The cost-effectiveness estimates were mostly sensitive to the discount rate and the cost of outpatient visits at health facilities. The intervention remained dominant with a 100% probability of cost savings within 10 000 simulations of the sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing inexpensive diarrheal treatment (oral rehydration salts and zinc) in communities is an attractive cost-effective intervention. Evidence from this study should be used to scale up the coverage of this life- and cost-saving intervention.

Cost of pediatric hospitalizations in Burkina Faso: A cross-sectional study of children aged <5 years enrolled through an acute gastroenteritis surveillance program

INTRODUCTION

Diarrheal illness is a leading cause of hospitalizations among children <5 years. We estimated the costs of inpatient care for rotavirus and all-cause acute gastroenteritis (AGE) in two Burkina Faso hospitals.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study among children <5 years from December 2017 to June 2018 in one urban and one rural pediatric hospital. Costs were ascertained through caregiver interview and chart abstraction. Direct medical, non-medical, and indirect costs per child incurred are reported. Costs were stratified by rotavirus results.

RESULTS

211 children <5 years were included. AGE hospitalizations cost 161USD (IQR 117-239); 180USD (IQR 121-242) at the urban and 154USD (IQR 116-235) at the rural site. Direct medical costs were higher in the urban compared to the rural site (140USD (IQR 102-182) vs. 90USD (IQR 71-108), respectively). Direct non-medical costs were higher at the rural versus urban site (15USD (IQR 10, 15) vs. 11USD (IQR 5-20), respectively). Indirect costs were higher at the rural versus urban site (35USD (IQR 8-91) vs. 0USD (IQR 0-26), respectively). Rotavirus hospitalizations incurred less direct medical costs as compared to non-rotavirus hospitalizations at the rural site (79USD (IQR 64-103) vs. 95USD (IQR 80-118)). No other differences by rotavirus testing status were observed. The total median cost of a hospitalization incurred by households was 24USD (IQR 12-49) compared to 75USD for government (IQR 59-97). Direct medical costs for households were higher in the urban site (median 49USD (IQR 31-81) versus rural (median 14USD (IQR 8-25)). Households in the lowest wealth quintiles at the urban site expended 149% of their monthly income on the child's hospitalization, compared to 96% at the rural site.

CONCLUSIONS

AGE hospitalization costs differed between the urban and rural hospitals and were most burdensome to the lowest income households. Rotavirus positivity was not associated with greater household costs.