Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29912462›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2018

The cost of preventing undernutrition: cost, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of three cash-based interventions on nutrition outcomes in Dadu, Pakistan.

Lani Trenouth, Timothy Colbourn, Bridget Fenn, Silke Pietzsch, Mark Myatt, Chloe Puett

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Food Insecurity in Europe: A Gender Perspective.Social indicators research · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lani TrenouthAction Against Hunger, 1 Whitehall St, New York, NY 10004, USA.
Timothy ColbournInstitute for Global Health, University College London, 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N 1EH, UK.
Bridget FennEmergency Nutrition Network, 32 Leopold Street, Oxford OX4 1TW, UK.
Silke PietzschAction Against Hunger, 1 Whitehall St, New York, NY 10004, USA.
Mark MyattBrixton Health, Alltgoch Uchaf Llawryglyn, Caersws, Powys SY17 5RJ, UK.
Chloe PuettAction Against Hunger, 1 Whitehall St, New York, NY 10004, USA.
Henry Morrison Flagler Museum · USUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cash-based interventions (CBIs) increasingly are being used to deliver humanitarian assistance and there is growing interest in the cost-effectiveness of cash transfers for preventing undernutrition in emergency contexts. The objectives of this study were to assess the costs, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness in achieving nutrition outcomes of three CBIs in southern Pakistan: a 'double cash' (DC) transfer, a 'standard cash' (SC) transfer and a 'fresh food voucher' (FFV) transfer. Cash and FFVs were provided to poor households with children aged 6-48 months for 6 months in 2015. The SC and FFV interventions provided $14 monthly and the DC provided $28 monthly. Cost data were collected via institutional accounting records, interviews, programme observation, document review and household survey. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per case of wasting, stunting and disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Beneficiary costs were higher for the cash groups than the voucher group. Net total cost transfer ratios (TCTRs) were estimated as 1.82 for DC, 2.82 for SC and 2.73 for FFV. Yet, despite the higher operational costs, the FFV TCTR was lower than the SC TCTR when incorporating the participation cost to households, demonstrating the relevance of including beneficiary costs in cost-efficiency estimations. The DC intervention achieved a reduction in wasting, at $4865 per case averted; neither the SC nor the FFV interventions reduced wasting. The cost per case of stunting averted was $1290 for DC, $882 for SC and $883 for FFV. The cost per DALY averted was $641 for DC, $434 for SC and $563 for FFV without discounting or age weighting. These interventions are highly cost-effective by international thresholds. While it is debatable whether these resource requirements represent a feasible or sustainable investment given low health expenditures in Pakistan, these findings may provide justification for continuing Pakistan's investment in national social safety nets.

Indexed as

Financial SupportChild, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleGrowth DisordersHumansInfantInfant Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaMaleMalnutritionPakistan

Identifiers

PMID29912462
PMCPMC6005105
OpenAlexW2809149783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.