Trial reportEcoHealth2019
Early Adoption of an Improved Household Energy System in Urban Rwanda.
Trial report in EcoHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impacts of Improved Cookstove Interventions on Personal Exposure to Carbon Monoxide and Particulate Matter in Zambia.GeoHealth · 2025Article
- Association of a cleaner-burning stove with blood pressure in adults in rural Malawi.PloS one · 2025Article
- Improved cookstoves to reduce household air pollution exposure in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review of intervention studies.PloS one · 2023Article
- Investigating Cooking Activity Patterns and Perceptions of Air Quality Interventions among Women in Urban Rwanda.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Implementation and scale-up of a biomass pellet and improved cookstove enterprise in Rwanda.Energy for sustainable development : the journal of the International Energy Initiative · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cooking with solid fuels and inefficient cookstoves has adverse consequences for health, environment, and human well-being. Despite the promise of improved cookstoves to reduce these impacts, adoption rates are relatively low. Using a 2-wave sample of 144 households from the baseline and first midline of an ongoing 4-year randomized controlled trial in Rwanda, we analyze the drivers and associations of early adoption of a household energy intervention marketed by a private sector firm. Households sign an annual contract to purchase sustainably produced biomass pellets and lease a fan micro-gasification cookstove with verified emissions reductions in laboratory settings. Using difference-in-differences and fixed effects estimation techniques, we examine the association between take-up of the improved cooking system and household fuel expenditures, health outcomes, and time use for primary cooks. Thirty percent of households adopted the pellet and improved cookstove system. Adopting households had more assets, lower per capita total expenditures and cooking fuel expenditures, and higher per capita hygiene expenditures. Households with married household heads and female cooks were significantly more likely to adopt. Adjusting for confounders, we find significant reduction in primary cooks' systolic blood pressure, self-reported prevalence of shortness of breath, an indicator of respiratory illness, time spent cooking, and household expenditures on charcoal. Our findings have implications for marketing of future clean fuel and improved cookstove programs in urban settings or where stoves and fuel are purchased. Analysis of follow-up surveys will allow for estimation of long-term impacts of adoption of interventions involving pellets and fan micro-gasification cookstoves.
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.