Trial reportHealth policy and planning2022
The cost-effectiveness of community health workers delivering free diarrhoea treatment: evidence from Uganda.
Trial report in Health policy and planning, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality Improvement Initiatives in Pediatric Emergency Care in Low-Resource Settings: Addressing Patient Safety and Outcomes.International journal of pediatrics · 2026Review
- Costs and cost-effectiveness of community health worker programs on reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health in low- and middle-income countries (2015-2024): A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Feasibility and Acceptability of Diabetes and Hypertension Screening and Diagnosis by Community Health Workers in Rural Lesotho: A Mixed-Methods Pilot Study.Annals of global health · 2025Article
- Drivers of COVID-19 vaccine uptake among rural populations in Madagascar: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Community health workers (CHWs) are a vital part of the health infrastructure in Uganda and in many other low- and middle-income countries. While the need for CHWs is clear, it is less clear how they should dispense health products to maximize the health benefits to their community. In this study, we assess the cost-effectiveness of several competing CHW distribution strategies in the context of treatment for child diarrhoea. We used data from a four-armed cluster-randomized controlled trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of (1) free distribution of oral rehydration salts (ORS) via home deliveries prior to diarrhoea onset (free delivery arm), (2) free distribution via vouchers where households retrieved the treatment from a central location (voucher arm), (3) a door-to-door sales model (home sales arm) and (4) a control arm where CHWs carried out their activities as normal. We assessed the cost-effectiveness from the implementor's perspective and a societal perspective in terms of cost per case treated with ORS and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Free delivery was the most effective strategy and the cheapest from a societal perspective. Although implementor costs were highest in this arm, cost savings comes from households using fewer resources to seek treatment outside the home (transport, doctor fees and treatment costs). From the implementors' perspective, free delivery costs $2.19 per additional case treated and $56 per DALY averted relative to the control. Free delivery was also extremely cost-effective relative to home sales and vouchers, but there was a large degree of uncertainty around the comparison with vouchers. Free distribution of ORS by CHWs prior to diarrhoea onset is extremely cost-effective compared to other CHW distribution models. Implementers of CHW programmes should consider free home delivery of ORS.
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.