ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2017
A health intervention or a kitchen appliance? Household costs and benefits of a cleaner burning biomass-fuelled cookstove in Malawi.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Societal perceptions of household air pollution and how it impacts children's respiratory health: a systematic review of qualitative studies.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review to Evaluate the Association between Clean Cooking Technologies and Time Use in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Pooled it
- A secondary data analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial: improved cookstoves associated with reduction in incidence of low birthweight in rural Malawi.International journal of epidemiology · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Improving Energy Access, Climate and Socio-Economic Outcomes Through Off-Grid Electrification Technologies: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2025Review
- Impact of Stove Renovation on PMToxics · 2023Article
- Improved cookstoves to reduce household air pollution exposure in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review of intervention studies.PloS one · 2023Article
- "We threw away the stones": a mixed method evaluation of a simple cookstove intervention in Malawi.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- 'Pneumonia has gone': exploring perceptions of health in a cookstove intervention trial in rural Malawi.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- Exploring the impact of a liquefied petroleum gas intervention on time use in rural Peru: A mixed methods study on perceptions, use, and implications of time savings.Environment international · 2020Article
- Knowledge gaps in the construction of rural healthy homes: A research agenda for improved low-cost housing in hot-humid Africa.PLoS medicine · 2019Article
- Differential exposure and acute health impacts of inhaled solid-fuel emissions from rudimentary and advanced cookstoves in female CD-1 mice.Environmental research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Pneumonia is the leading cause of mortality for children under five years in sub-Saharan Africa. Household air pollution has been found to increase risk of pneumonia, especially due to exposure from dirty burning biomass fuels. It has been suggested that advanced stoves, which burn fuel more efficiently and reduce smoke emissions, may help to reduce household air pollution in poor, rural settings. This qualitative study aims to provide an insight into the household costs and perceived benefits from use of the stove in Malawi. It was conducted alongside The Cooking and Pneumonia Study (CAPS), the largest village cluster-level randomised controlled trial of an advanced combustion cookstove intervention to prevent pneumonia in children under five to date. In 2015, using 100 semi-structured interviews this study assessed household time use and perceptions of the stove from both control and intervention participants taking part in the CAPS trial in Chilumba. Household direct and indirect costs associated with the intervention were calculated. Users overwhelming liked using the stove. The main reported benefits were reduced cooking times and reduced fuel consumption. In most interviews, the health benefits were not initially identified as advantages of the stove, although when prompted, respondents stated that reduced smoke emissions contributed to a reduction in respiratory symptoms. The cost of the stove was much higher than most respondents said they would be willing to pay. The stoves were not primarily seen as health products. Perceptions of limited impact on health was subsequently supported by the CAPS trial data which showed no significant effect on pneumonia. While the findings are encouraging from the perspective of acceptability, without innovative financing mechanisms, general uptake and sustained use of the stove may not be possible in this setting. The findings also raise the question of whether the stoves should be marketed and championed as 'health interventions'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.