Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29558915›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2018

Optima Nutrition: an allocative efficiency tool to reduce childhood stunting by better targeting of nutrition-related interventions.

Ruth Pearson, Madhura Killedar, Janka Petravic, Jakub J Kakietek, Nick Scott, Kelsey L Grantham, Robyn M Stuart, David J Kedziora, Cliff C Kerr, Jolene Skordis-Worrall and 2 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Costing universal health coverage.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Ruth PearsonBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia. ruth.pearson@burnet.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-5741-5050
Madhura KilledarBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Janka PetravicBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Jakub J KakietekThe World Bank, ICF International, Washington D.C., USA.
Nick ScottBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Kelsey L GranthamBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Robyn M StuartBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
David J KedzioraBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Cliff C KerrBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Jolene Skordis-WorrallOptima Consortium for Decision Science, Melbourne, Australia.
Meera ShekarThe World Bank, ICF International, Washington D.C., USA.
David P WilsonBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChild stunting due to chronic malnutrition is a major problem in low- and middle-income countries due, in part, to inadequate nutrition-related practices and insufficient access to services. Limited budgets for nutritional interventions mean that available resources must be targeted in the most cost-effective manner to have the greatest impact. Quantitative tools can help guide budget allocation decisions.

methodsThe Optima approach is an established framework to conduct resource allocation optimization analyses. We applied this approach to develop a new tool, 'Optima Nutrition', for conducting allocative efficiency analyses that address childhood stunting. At the core of the Optima approach is an epidemiological model for assessing the burden of disease; we use an adapted version of the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). Six nutritional interventions have been included in the first release of the tool: antenatal micronutrient supplementation, balanced energy-protein supplementation, exclusive breastfeeding promotion, promotion of improved infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices, public provision of complementary foods, and vitamin A supplementation. To demonstrate the use of this tool, we applied it to evaluate the optimal allocation of resources in 7 districts in Bangladesh, using both publicly available data (such as through DHS) and data from a complementary costing study.

resultsOptima Nutrition can be used to estimate how to target resources to improve nutrition outcomes. Specifically, for the Bangladesh example, despite only limited nutrition-related funding available (an estimated $0.75 per person in need per year), even without any extra resources, better targeting of investments in nutrition programming could increase the cumulative number of children living without stunting by 1.3 million (an extra 5%) by 2030 compared to the current resource allocation. To minimize stunting, priority interventions should include promotion of improved IYCF practices as well as vitamin A supplementation. Once these programs are adequately funded, the public provision of complementary foods should be funded as the next priority. Programmatic efforts should give greatest emphasis to the regions of Dhaka and Chittagong, which have the greatest number of stunted children.

conclusionsA resource optimization tool can provide important guidance for targeting nutrition investments to achieve greater impact.

Indexed as

BangladeshChild Nutrition DisordersChild, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisGrowth DisordersHealth Care RationingHealth PromotionHumansInfantInfant, Newborn

Identifiers

PMID29558915
PMCPMC5861618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.