ArticleGlobal health action2018
Cost-benefit analysis of water source improvements through borehole drilling or rehabilitation: an empirical study based on a cluster randomized controlled trial in the Volta Region, Ghana.
Article in Global health action, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Measurement of benefits in economic evaluations of nutrition interventions in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.Maternal & child nutrition · 2022Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite remarkable progress in water coverage improvements, diseases associated with poor water remain a considerable public health problem in many developing countries.
objectiveWe aimed to estimate the costs and benefits of drilling or rehabilitating boreholes with handpumps in resource-poor settings and hard-to-reach areas.
methodsDiarrheal reduction in the population was predicted on the basis of the empirical findings from a cluster randomized controlled trial. The full investment and estimated annual running costs were used to calculate the intervention costs. Direct economic benefits of avoiding child diarrheal disease, indirect economic benefits related to health improvements, and non-health benefits related to water improvement were estimated. One-way and multi-way sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the robustness of the findings.
resultsOur analysis found that the return on a US$ 1 investment was US$ 9.4 for borehole drilling and US$ 14.1 for borehole rehabilitation. Time savings were the main contributor, accounting for 68% of the benefits, followed by the economic benefits of averted child deaths, which contributed to 15% of the benefits. The sensitivity analyses suggested that improving water sources yields high returns under all circumstances, and that borehole rehabilitation is more efficient than borehole drilling.
conclusionThis study explicitly justifies increased investment in water improvement in rural areas and demonstrates the high returns of rehabilitating boreholes. We hope that this study will be used as evidence for informing the policy decisions of governments or international agencies regarding further investments in improved water coverage in rural areas and the selection of appropriately designed 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.