Search

Background:To compare the cost-effectiveness of nutrition programs, the anticipated nutritional benefits of each intervention must be expressed using a common metric.Objective:We present the methodology for estimating the benefits of vitamin A (VA)-related interventions among women and children in Cameroon.Methods:We estimated “reach” (proportion of the population that receives a program), “coverage” (proportion that is deficient and receives a program), and “effective coverage” (proportion that “converts” from inadequate to adequate VA intake following an intervention) using dietary data collected during a national survey in 3 macro-regions of Cameroon (North, South, and Yaoundé/Douala). Effective coverage of programs such as (bio)fortification and micronutrient powders was estimated by adding the dietary VA contributed by the intervention to baseline VA intakes, including the contribution of increased maternal VA intake to infant VA intake through increases in breast milk VA. For interventions that provide VA-related benefits through other pathways (eg, periodic high-dose VA supplements and deworming), we developed alternative methods of estimating “daily VA intake equivalents.”Results:Baseline VA intakes and intervention reach varied by geographic macro-region. On average, estimates of program reach were greater than the effective coverage estimates by ∼50%. Effective coverage varied by intervention package and macro-region, ranging from 400 000 (micronutrient powder or VA supplement, North) children effectively covered per year.Conclusion:These estimates of effective coverage, along with macro-region-specific information on the costs of each intervention package, serve as inputs into an economic optimization model to identify the most cost-effective package of VA interventions for each macro-region of Cameroon.

Background: To address vitamin A (VA) deficiency, an array of interventions have been developed for increasing VA status among young children. With numerous possible combinations of interventions, however, comes the need to take decisions regarding which intervention or combination of interventions is most cost effective for achieving VA deficiency reduction targets. Methods: Detailed intervention-specific, “macro-region”-level data in Cameroon are used to generate estimates of the costs associated with delivering VA to children aged 6 to 59 months. Results: In Cameroon, our estimates of costs per effectively-covered child (ie, children at risk of inadequate intake of VA who are exposed to an intervention and who achieve adequate intake) each year (2 rounds of Child Health Days [CHDs]) were US$3.31 for VA supplements. VA fortification of edible oil and bouillon cube was US$2.95 and US$2.41, respectively, per child effectively covered per year, and biofortification of maize was US$5.30 per child effectively covered per year. Combinations of interventions could reduce costs (eg, delivering additional interventions that affect VA status through the CHDs). Spatial differences in costs within Cameroon were also evident, for example, delivering high-dose VA capsules through CHDs leads to a cost of US$0.77 per child reached in the northern regions compared to US$1.40 per child reached in the southern regions. Conclusion: The costs associated with alternative VA interventions in Cameroon differ spatially, temporally, and in their cost-effectiveness. Choosing the appropriate combination of interventions can produce a more efficient portfolio of interventions to address VA deficiencies and VA-related deaths.