Search

Background: Due to the limited evidence of the cost-effectiveness of Community Health Workers (CHW) delivering treatment for severe acute malnutrition (SAM), there is a need to better understand the costs incurred by both implementing institutions and beneficiary households. This study assessed the costs and cost-effectiveness of treatment for cases of SAM without complications delivered by government-employed Lady Health Workers (LHWs) and complemented with non-governmental organisation (NGO) delivered outpatient facility-based care compared with NGO delivered outpatient facility-based care only alongside a two-arm randomised controlled trial conducted in Sindh Province, Pakistan.Methods: An activity-based cost model was used, employing a societal perspective to include costs incurred by beneficiaries and the wider community. Costs were estimated through accounting records, interviews and informal group discussions. Cost-effectiveness was assessed for each arm relative to no intervention, and incrementally between the two interventions, providing information on both absolute and relative costs and effects.Results: The cost per child recovered in outpatient facility-based care was similar to LHW-delivered care, at 363 USD and 382 USD respectively. An additional 146 USD was spent per additional child recovered by outpatient facilities compared to LHWs. Results of sensitivity analyses indicated considerable uncertainty in which strategy was most cost-effective due to small differences in cost and recovery rates between arms. The cost to the beneficiary household of outpatient facility-based care was double that of LHW-delivered care.Conclusions: Outpatient facility-based care was found to be slightly more cost-effective compared to LHW-delivered care, despite the potential for cost-effectiveness of CHWs managing SAM being demonstrated in other settings. The similarity of cost-effectiveness outcomes between the two models resulted in uncertainty as to which strategy was the most cost-effective. Similarity of costs and effectiveness between models suggests that whether it is appropriate to engage LHWs in substituting or complementing outpatient facilities may depend on population needs, including coverage and accessibility of existing services, rather than be purely a consideration of cost. Future research should assess the cost-effectiveness of LHW-delivered care when delivered solely by the government.Trial Registration: NCT03043352 , ClinicalTrials.gov. Retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cash-based transfer programmes are an emerging strategy in the prevention of wasting in children, especially targeted at vulnerable households during periods of food insecurity or during emergencies. However, the evidence surrounding the use of either cash or voucher transfer programmes in the humanitarian context and on nutritional outcomes is elusive. More evidence is needed not only to inform the global community of practice on best practices in humanitarian settings, but also to help strengthen national mitigation responses.Methods/design: The Research for Food Assistance on Nutrition Impact Pakistan study (REFANI-P) sets out to evaluate the impact of three cash-based interventions on nutritional outcomes in children aged less than five years from poor and very poor households in Dadu District. This four-arm parallel cluster randomised controlled trial is set among Action Against Hunger (ACF) programme villages in Dadu District, Sindh Province. Mothers are the target recipients of either seasonal unconditional cash transfers or fresh food vouchers. A comparison group receives 'standard care' provided by the ACF programme to which all groups have the same access. The primary outcomes are prevalence of wasting and mean weight-for-height Z-score (WHZ) in children. Impact will be assessed at 6 months and at 1 year from baseline. Using a theory-based approach we will determine 'how' the different interventions work by looking at the processes involved and the impact pathways following the theory of change developed for this context. Quantitative and qualitative data are collected on morbidity, health seeking, hygiene and nutrition behaviours, dietary diversity, haemoglobin concentration, women's empowerment, household food security and expenditures and social capital. The direct and indirect costs of each intervention borne by the implementing organisation and their partners as well as by beneficiaries and their communities are also assessed.Discussion: The results of this trial will provide robust evidence to help increase knowledge about the predictability of how different modalities of cash-based transfer work best to reduce the risk of child wasting during a season where food insecurity is at its highest. Evidence on costing and cost-effectiveness will further aid decisions on choice of modality in terms of effectiveness and sustainability.Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10761532 . Registered 26 March 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveTo understand and compare the primary barriers households face when accessing treatment for cases of childhood severe acute malnutrition (SAM) in different cultural settings with different types of implementing agencies.DesignThe study presents a comparative qualitative analysis of two SAM treatment services, selected to include: (i) one programme implemented by a non-governmental organization and one by a Ministry of Health; and (ii) programmes considered to be successful, defined as either coverage level achieved or extent of integration within government infrastructure. Results from individual interviews and group discussions were recorded and analysed for themes in barriers to access.SettingSindh Province, Pakistan; Tigray Region, Ethiopia.SubjectsBeneficiary communities and staff of SAM treatment services in two countries.ResultsCommon barriers were related to distance, high opportunity costs, knowledge of services, knowledge of malnutrition and child’s refusal of ready-to-use foods. While community sensitization mechanisms were generally strong in these well-performing programmes, in remote areas with less programme exposure, beneficiaries experienced barriers to remaining in the programme until their children recovered.ConclusionsHouseholds experienced a number of barriers when accessing SAM treatment services. Integration of SAM treatment with other community-based interventions, as the UN recommends, can improve access to life-saving services. Efforts to integrate SAM treatment into national health systems should not neglect the community component of health systems and dedicated funding for the community component is needed to ensure access. Further research and policy efforts should investigate feasible mechanisms to effectively reduce barriers to access and ensure equitable service delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]