Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35137531›Full record

SynthesisMaternal & child nutrition2022

Measurement of benefits in economic evaluations of nutrition interventions in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

Jolene Wun, Christopher Kemp, Chloe Puett, Devon Bushnell, Jonny Crocker, Carol Levin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Maternal & child nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Jolene WunIndependent Consultant, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1459-1388
Christopher KempDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1231-1546
Chloe PuettProgram in Public Health, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5163-5933
Devon BushnellDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Jonny CrockerDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3675-3923
Carol LevinDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7691-0172

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Economic evaluation of nutrition interventions that compares the costs to benefits is essential to priority-setting. However, there are unique challenges to synthesizing the findings of multi-sectoral nutrition interventions due to the diversity of potential benefits and the methodological differences among sectors in measuring them. This systematic review summarises literature on the interventions, sectors, benefit terminology and benefit types included in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and benefit-cost analyses (CEA, CUA and BCA, respectively) of nutrition interventions in low- and middle-income countries. A systematic search of five databases published from January 2010 to September 2019 with expert consultation yielded 2794 studies, of which 93 met all inclusion criteria. Eighty-seven per cent of the included studies included interventions delivered from only one sector, with almost half from the health sector (43%), followed by food/agriculture (27%), water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) (10%), and social protection (8%). Only 9% of studies assessed programmes involving more than one sector (health, food/agriculture, social protection and/or WASH). Eighty-one per cent of studies used more than one term to refer to intervention benefits. The included studies calculated 128 economic evaluation ratios (57 CEAs, 39 CUAs and 32 BCAs), and the benefits they included varied by sector. Nearly 60% measured a single benefit category, most frequently nutritional status improvements; other health benefits, cognitive/education gains, dietary diversity, food security, knowledge/attitudes/practices and income were included in less than 10% of all ratios. Additional economic evaluation of non-health and multi-sector interventions, and incorporation of benefits beyond nutritional improvements (including cost savings) in future economic evaluations is recommended.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesIncomeCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansNutritional StatusSanitationcost-benefit analysiscost-effectiveness analysiseconomic evaluationinterventionlow- and middle-income countriesmalnutrition

Identifiers

PMID35137531
PMCPMC8932707

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.