Protocol for the cost-consequence and equity impact analyses of a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing three variants of a nutrition-sensitive agricultural extension intervention to improve maternal and child dietary diversity and nutritional status in rural Odisha, India (UPAVAN trial)

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.

Effect of nutrition-sensitive agriculture interventions with participatory videos and women's group meetings on maternal and child nutritional outcomes in rural Odisha, India (UPAVAN trial): a four-arm, observer-blind, cluster-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Almost a quarter of the world's undernourished people live in India. We tested the effects of three nutrition-sensitive agriculture (NSA) interventions on maternal and child nutrition in India.

METHODS

We did a parallel, four-arm, observer-blind, cluster-randomised trial in Keonjhar district, Odisha, India. A cluster was one or more villages with a combined minimum population of 800 residents. The clusters were allocated 1:1:1:1 to a control group or an intervention group of fortnightly women's groups meetings and household visits over 32 months using: NSA videos (AGRI group); NSA and nutrition-specific videos (AGRI-NUT group); or NSA videos and a nutrition-specific participatory learning and action (PLA) cycle meetings and videos (AGRI-NUT+PLA group). Primary outcomes were the proportion of children aged 6-23 months consuming at least four of seven food groups the previous day and mean maternal body-mass index (BMI). Secondary outcomes were proportion of mothers consuming at least five of ten food groups and child wasting (proportion of children with weight-for-height Z score SD <-2). Outcomes were assessed in children and mothers through cross-sectional surveys at baseline and at endline, 36 months later. Analyses were by intention to treat. Participants and intervention facilitators were not blinded to allocation; the research team were. This trial is registered at ISRCTN, ISRCTN65922679.

FINDINGS

148 of 162 clusters assessed for eligibility were enrolled and randomly allocated to trial groups (37 clusters per group). Baseline surveys took place from Nov 24, 2016, to Jan 24, 2017; clusters were randomised from December, 2016, to January, 2017; and interventions were implemented from March 20, 2017, to Oct 31, 2019, and endline surveys done from Nov 19, 2019, to Jan 12, 2020, in an average of 32 households per cluster. All clusters were included in the analyses. There was an increase in the proportion of children consuming at least four of seven food groups in the AGRI-NUT (adjusted relative risk [RR] 1·19, 95% CI 1·03 to 1·37, p=0·02) and AGRI-NUT+PLA (1·27, 1·11 to 1·46, p=0·001) groups, but not AGRI (1·06, 0·91 to 1·23, p=0·44), compared with the control group. We found no effects on mean maternal BMI (adjusted mean differences vs control, AGRI -0·05, -0·34 to 0·24; AGRI-NUT 0·04, -0·26 to 0·33; AGRI-NUT+PLA -0·03, -0·3 to 0·23). An increase in the proportion of mothers consuming at least five of ten food groups was seen in the AGRI (adjusted RR 1·21, 1·01 to 1·45) and AGRI-NUT+PLA (1·30, 1·10 to 1·53) groups compared with the control group, but not in AGRI-NUT (1·16, 0·98 to 1·38). We found no effects on child wasting (adjusted RR vs control, AGRI 0·95, 0·73 to 1·24; AGRI-NUT 0·96, 0·72 to 1·29; AGRI-NUT+PLA 0·96, 0·73 to 1·26).

INTERPRETATION

Women's groups using combinations of NSA videos, nutrition-specific videos, and PLA cycle meetings improved maternal and child diet quality in rural Odisha, India. These components have been implemented separately in several low-income settings; effects could be increased by scaling up together.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, UK AID from the UK Government, and US Agency for International Development.

Community-level interventions for improving access to food in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

After decades of decline since 2005, the global prevalence of undernourishment reverted and since 2015 has increased to levels seen in 2010 to 2011. The prevalence is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially Africa and Asia. Food insecurity and associated undernutrition detrimentally affect health and socioeconomic development in the short and long term, for individuals, including children, and societies. Physical and economic access to food is crucial to ensure food security. Community-level interventions could be important to increase access to food in LMICs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of community-level interventions that aim to improve access to nutritious food in LMICs, for both the whole community and for disadvantaged or at-risk individuals or groups within a community, such as infants, children and women; elderly, poor or unemployed people; or minority groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for relevant studies in 16 electronic databases, including trial registries, from 1980 to September 2019, and updated the searches in six key databases in February 2020. We applied no language or publication status limits.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) and prospective controlled studies (PCS). All population groups, adults and children, living in communities in LMICs exposed to community-level interventions aiming to improve food access were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that only included participants with specific diseases or conditions (e.g. severely malnourished children). Eligible interventions were broadly categorised into those that improved buying power (e.g. create income-generation opportunities, cash transfer schemes); addressed food prices (e.g. vouchers and subsidies); addressed infrastructure and transport that affected physical access to food outlets; addressed the social environment and provided social support (e.g. social support from family, neighbours or government).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible records, against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or arbitration by a third author, if necessary. For each included study, two authors independently extracted data and a third author arbitrated disagreements. However, the outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by a biostatistician. We assessed risk of bias for all studies using the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) risk of bias tool for studies with a separate control group. We conducted meta-analyses if there was a minimum of two studies for interventions within the same category, reporting the same outcome measure and these were sufficiently homogeneous. Where we were able to meta-analyse, we used the random-effects model to incorporate any existing heterogeneity. Where we were unable to conduct meta-analyses, we synthesised using vote counting based on effect direction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 studies, including 214 to 169,485 participants, and 300 to 124, 644 households, mostly from Africa and Latin America, addressing the following six intervention types (three studies assessed two different types of interventions). Interventions that improved buying power: Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) (16 cRCTs, two RCTs, three PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that UCTs improve food security and make little or no difference to cognitive function and development and low-certainty evidence that UCTs may increase dietary diversity and may reduce stunting. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of UCTs on the proportion of household expenditure on food, and on wasting. Regarding adverse outcomes, evidence from one trial indicates that UCTs reduce the proportion of infants who are overweight. Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) (nine cRCTs, five PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that CCTs result in little to no difference in the proportion of household expenditure on food and that they slightly improve cognitive function in children; moderate-certainty evidence that CCTs probably slightly improve dietary diversity and low-certainty evidence that they may make little to no difference to stunting or wasting. Evidence on adverse outcomes (two PCSs) shows that CCTs make no difference to the proportion of overweight children. Income generation interventions (six cRCTs, 11 PCSs): we found moderate-certainty evidence that income generation interventions probably make little or no difference to stunting or wasting; and low-certainty evidence that they may result in little to no difference to food security or that they may improve dietary diversity in children, but not for households. Interventions that addressed food prices: Food vouchers (three cRCTs, one RCT): we found moderate-certainty evidence that food vouchers probably reduce stunting; and low-certainty evidence that that they may improve dietary diversity slightly, and may result in little to no difference in wasting. Food and nutrition subsidies (one cRCT, three PCSs): we found low-certainty evidence that food and nutrition subsidies may improve dietary diversity among school children. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on household expenditure on healthy foods as a proportion of total expenditure on food (very low-certainty evidence). Interventions that addressed the social environment: Social support interventions (one cRCT, one PCS): we found moderate-certainty evidence that community grants probably make little or no difference to wasting; low-certainty evidence that they may make little or no difference to stunting. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of village savings and loans on food security and dietary diversity. None of the included studies addressed the intervention category of infrastructure changes. In addition, none of the studies reported on one of the primary outcomes of this review, namely prevalence of undernourishment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The body of evidence indicates that UCTs can improve food security. Income generation interventions do not seem to make a difference for food security, but the evidence is unclear for the other interventions. CCTs, UCTs, interventions that help generate income, interventions that help minimise impact of food prices through food vouchers and subsidies can potentially improve dietary diversity. UCTs and food vouchers may have a potential impact on reducing stunting, but CCTs, income generation interventions or social environment interventions do not seem to make a difference on wasting or stunting. CCTs seem to positively impact cognitive function and development, but not UCTs, which may be due to school attendance, healthcare visits and other conditionalities associated with CCTs.

Community-level interventions for improving access to food in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

After decades of decline since 2005, the global prevalence of undernourishment reverted and since 2015 has increased to levels seen in 2010 to 2011. The prevalence is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially Africa and Asia. Food insecurity and associated undernutrition detrimentally affect health and socioeconomic development in the short and long term, for individuals, including children, and societies. Physical and economic access to food is crucial to ensure food security. Community-level interventions could be important to increase access to food in LMICs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of community-level interventions that aim to improve access to nutritious food in LMICs, for both the whole community and for disadvantaged or at-risk individuals or groups within a community, such as infants, children and women; elderly, poor or unemployed people; or minority groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for relevant studies in 16 electronic databases, including trial registries, from 1980 to September 2019, and updated the searches in six key databases in February 2020. We applied no language or publication status limits.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) and prospective controlled studies (PCS). All population groups, adults and children, living in communities in LMICs exposed to community-level interventions aiming to improve food access were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that only included participants with specific diseases or conditions (e.g. severely malnourished children). Eligible interventions were broadly categorised into those that improved buying power (e.g. create income-generation opportunities, cash transfer schemes); addressed food prices (e.g. vouchers and subsidies); addressed infrastructure and transport that affected physical access to food outlets; addressed the social environment and provided social support (e.g. social support from family, neighbours or government).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible records, against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or arbitration by a third author, if necessary. For each included study, two authors independently extracted data and a third author arbitrated disagreements. However, the outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by a biostatistician. We assessed risk of bias for all studies using the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) risk of bias tool for studies with a separate control group. We conducted meta-analyses if there was a minimum of two studies for interventions within the same category, reporting the same outcome measure and these were sufficiently homogeneous. Where we were able to meta-analyse, we used the random-effects model to incorporate any existing heterogeneity. Where we were unable to conduct meta-analyses, we synthesised using vote counting based on effect direction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 studies, including 214 to 169,485 participants, and 300 to 124, 644 households, mostly from Africa and Latin America, addressing the following six intervention types (three studies assessed two different types of interventions). Interventions that improved buying power: Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) (16 cRCTs, two RCTs, three PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that UCTs improve food security and make little or no difference to cognitive function and development and low-certainty evidence that UCTs may increase dietary diversity and may reduce stunting. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of UCTs on the proportion of household expenditure on food, and on wasting. Regarding adverse outcomes, evidence from one trial indicates that UCTs reduce the proportion of infants who are overweight. Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) (nine cRCTs, five PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that CCTs result in little to no difference in the proportion of household expenditure on food and that they slightly improve cognitive function in children; moderate-certainty evidence that CCTs probably slightly improve dietary diversity and low-certainty evidence that they may make little to no difference to stunting or wasting. Evidence on adverse outcomes (two PCSs) shows that CCTs make no difference to the proportion of overweight children. Income generation interventions (six cRCTs, 11 PCSs): we found moderate-certainty evidence that income generation interventions probably make little or no difference to stunting or wasting; and low-certainty evidence that they may result in little to no difference to food security or that they may improve dietary diversity in children, but not for households. Interventions that addressed food prices: Food vouchers (three cRCTs, one RCT): we found moderate-certainty evidence that food vouchers probably reduce stunting; and low-certainty evidence that that they may improve dietary diversity slightly, and may result in little to no difference in wasting. Food and nutrition subsidies (one cRCT, three PCSs): we found low-certainty evidence that food and nutrition subsidies may improve dietary diversity among school children. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on household expenditure on healthy foods as a proportion of total expenditure on food (very low-certainty evidence). Interventions that addressed the social environment: Social support interventions (one cRCT, one PCS): we found moderate-certainty evidence that community grants probably make little or no difference to wasting; low-certainty evidence that they may make little or no difference to stunting. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of village savings and loans on food security and dietary diversity. None of the included studies addressed the intervention category of infrastructure changes. In addition, none of the studies reported on one of the primary outcomes of this review, namely prevalence of undernourishment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The body of evidence indicates that UCTs can improve food security. Income generation interventions do not seem to make a difference for food security, but the evidence is unclear for the other interventions. CCTs, UCTs, interventions that help generate income, interventions that help minimise impact of food prices through food vouchers and subsidies can potentially improve dietary diversity. UCTs and food vouchers may have a potential impact on reducing stunting, but CCTs, income generation interventions or social environment interventions do not seem to make a difference on wasting or stunting. CCTs seem to positively impact cognitive function and development, but not UCTs, which may be due to school attendance, healthcare visits and other conditionalities associated with CCTs.