Search

Background: Multiple specialized nutritious food options are programmed for supplementation in humanitarian and development settings. However, comparative cost-effectiveness evidence is lacking, let alone incorporation of perspectives from uncompensated stakeholders. A Burkina Faso trial evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Corn Soy Blend Plus w/ oil (CSB+ w/oil, reference arm), Corn Soy Whey Blend w/oil (CSWB w/oil), Super Cereal Plus (SC+), and Ready-to-Use Supplementary Food (RUSF) in reducing stunting and wasting among children 6-23 months old. This paper presents cost-effectiveness findings from multiple stakeholders' perspectives, including caregivers and program volunteers.Methods: An activity-based costing with ingredients approach was used to summarize cost of the 18-month-long blanket supplementary feeding for each enrolled child (in 2018 USD). Time data were collected using self-reported and observational instruments. Cost-effectiveness relative to CSB+ w/oil assessed incremental cost per enrolled child against incremental outcomes: prevalence of stunting at 23 months of age and number of months of wasting. Two combined perspectives were compared: program (donor, implementer, and volunteer) versus program and caregiver (adding caregiver).Results: A total of 6112 children were enrolled. While similar effectiveness was found in three arms (CSWB w/oil was less effective), costs differed. Product cost and caregiver time to prepare study foods were major drivers of cross-arm cost differences from the respective combined perspective. The two major drivers were used to construct uncertainty ranges of cost per enrolled child from program and caregiver perspective: $317 ($279- $355) in CSB+ w/oil, $350 ($327- $373) in CSWB w/oil, $387 ($371- $403) in RUSF, and $434 ($365- $503) in SC+. Cost from program and caregiver perspective was a substantial increase from program perspective. CSB+ w/oil was most cost-effective in reducing stunting and wasting, and this main finding was robust to changing perspectives and all corresponding sensitivity analyses when uncompensated time was valued at minimum wage ($0.36/h). The break-even point for uncompensated time valuation is >$0.84/h, where RUSF became the most cost-effective from the program and caregiver perspective. Relative cost-effectiveness rankings among the other three arms depended on choice of perspectives, and were sensitive to values assigned to product cost, international freight cost, opportunity cost of time, and outcomes of a hypothetical control. Volunteer opportunity cost did not affect arm comparisons, but lack of compensation resulted in negative financial consequences for caregivers.Conclusions: Evaluating cost-effectiveness by incorporating uncompensated stakeholders provided crucial implementation insights around nutrition products and programming.Trial Registration: Trial registration number: NCT02071563. Name of registry: ClinicalTrials.gov URL of registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02071563?type=Intr&cond=Malnutrition&cntry=BF&draw=2&rank=9 Date of registration: February 26, 2014. Date of enrollment of first participant: July 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is a variety of specialized nutritious foods available for use in programs targeting undernutrition, but evidence supporting the choice of product is limited. Objectives We compared the cost-effectiveness of 4 specialized nutritious foods to prevent stunting and wasting in children aged 6–23 mo in Burkina Faso. Methods Four geographic regions were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 intervention arms: Corn-Soy Blend Plus (CSB+) programmed with separate fortified vegetable oil (the reference food), Corn-Soy-Whey Blend (CSWB; a new formulation) with oil, SuperCereal Plus (SC+), and ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF). We compared the effects of each intervention arm on growth (length-for-age z score (LAZ), weight-for-length z score (WLZ), end-line stunting (LAZ < −2), and total monthly measurements of wasting (WLZ < −2). Rations were ∼500 kcal/d, distributed monthly. Children were enrolled in the blanket supplementary feeding program at age ∼6 mo and measured monthly for ∼18 mo. Average costs per child reached were linked with effectiveness to compare the cost-effectiveness of each arm with CSB+ with oil. Results In our sample of 6112 children (CSB+, n  = 1519; CSWB, n  = 1503; SC+, n  = 1564; RUSF, n  = 1526), none of the foods prevented declines in growth. Children in the SC+ and RUSF arms were not significantly different than those in the CSB+ with oil arm. Children in the CSWB with oil arm experienced higher end-line (measurement at age 22.9–23.9 mo) stunting (OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.46, 2.94) and more months of wasting (incidence rate ratio: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.51). CSB+ with oil was the least-expensive ration in all costing scenarios ($113–131 2018 US dollars/enrolled child) and similar in effectiveness to SC+ and RUSF, and thus the most cost-effective product for the defined purposes. Conclusions CSB+ with oil was the most cost-effective ration in the prevention of wasting and stunting in this trial. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02071563. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background A trial in Burkina Faso compared the cost-effectiveness of 4 specialized nutritious foods (SNFs) used to prevent stunting and wasting in children aged 6–23 mo. Objectives This article explores differences in SNF use that may have influenced effectiveness, specifically in relation to consumption by the recipient child and by any other person (i.e., sharing), other diversion from the recipient child, preparation, storage, and hygiene. Methods Subsamples from a geographically clustered, longitudinal trial with random assignment to Corn Soy Blend Plus with oil (CSB+ w/oil), Corn Soy Whey Blend with oil (CSWB w/oil), Super Cereal Plus (SC+), or ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF) were selected for in-depth interviews, in-home observations, and focus group discussions. Results Sharing was common in all arms, with the highest reported in SC+ (73%) and highest observed in CSWB w/oil (36%). Some reported giving the ration away (highest in SC+ at 17%) or using it for other purposes (highest in CSWB w/oil at 17%). The recipient child was observed consuming the ration in 49% of households on average (38–60% by arm in CSB+ w/oil and RUSF, respectively). Qualitative reports of bitterness and spoilage emerged in the CSWB w/oil arm. Most observed households (excluding RUSF) did not prepare porridge daily as instructed (35–46% by arm). Household water samples showed either high-risk or unsafe contamination with Escherichia coli (72–78% by arm). Low percentages were observed handwashing (both child and server) before consuming the porridge. Conclusions The SNFs were not prepared or served as intended and diversion from the recipient was common. Storage conditions may have resulted in spoilage of the ration containing whey before reaching recipients. This article provides context about factors that may have influenced the effectiveness of these SNFs. Programming and household use of SNFs are as important as their nutrient composition. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02071563. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]