Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35308896›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2022

Economic costs of childhood stunting to the private sector in low- and middle-income countries.

Nadia Akseer, Hana Tasic, Michael Nnachebe Onah, Jannah Wigle, Ramraj Rajakumar, Diana Sanchez-Hernandez, Jonathan Akuoku, Robert E Black, Bernardo L Horta, Ndidi Nwuneli and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Nadia AkseerJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, USA.
Hana TasicModern Scientist Global, Canada.
Michael Nnachebe OnahModern Scientist Global, Canada.
Jannah WigleModern Scientist Global, Canada.
Ramraj RajakumarModern Scientist Global, Canada.
Diana Sanchez-HernandezModern Scientist Global, Canada.
Jonathan AkuokuThe World Bank, USA.
Robert E BlackJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, USA.
Bernardo L HortaFederal University of Pelotas, Brazil.
Ndidi NwuneliSahel Consulting Agriculture and Nutrition Ltd., Nigeria.
Ritta ShineGlobal Alliance for Improved Nutrition, Switzerland.
Kerri WaznyJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, USA.
Nikita JapraPatrick J McGovern Foundation, USA.
Meera ShekarThe World Bank, USA.
John HoddinottCornell University, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USWorld Bank · USCornell University · USGlobal Alliance for Improved Nutrition · CHUniversidade Federal de Pelotas · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Stunting during childhood has long-term consequences on human capital, including decreased physical growth, and lower educational attainment, cognition, workforce productivity and wages. Previous research has quantified the costs of stunting to national economies however beyond a few single-country datasets there has been a limited number of which have used diverse datasets and have had a dedicated focus on the private sector, which employs nearly 90% of the workforce in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to examine (i) the impact of childhood stunting on income loss of private sector workforce in LMICs; (ii) to quantify losses in sales to private firms in LMICs due to childhood stunting; and (iii) to estimate potential gains (benefit-cost ratios) if stunting levels are reduced in select high prevalence countries. Methods: This multiple-methods study engaged multi-disciplinary technical advisers, executed several literature reviews, used innovative statistical methods, and implemented health and labor economic models. We analyzed data from seven longitudinal datasets (up to 30+ years of follow-up; 1982-2016; Peru, Ethiopia, India, Vietnam, Philippines, Tanzania, Brazil), 108 private firm datasets (spanning 2008-2020), and many global datasets including Joint Malnutrition Estimates, and World Development Indicators to produce estimates for 120+ LMICs (with estimates up to 2021). We studied the impact of childhood stunting on adult cognition, education, and height as pathways to wages/productivity in adulthood. We employed cloud-based artificial intelligence (AI) platforms, and conducted comparative analyses using three analytic approaches: traditional frequentist statistics, Bayesian inferential statistics and machine learning. We employed labour and health economic models to estimate wage losses to the private sector worker and firm revenue losses due to stunting. We also estimated benefit-cost ratios for countries investing in nutrition-specific interventions to prevent stunting. Findings: Across 95 LMICs, childhood stunting costs the private sector at least US$135.4 billion in sales annually. Firms from countries in Latin America and the Caribbean and East Asia and Pacific regions had the greatest losses. Totals sales losses to the private sector accumulated to 0.01% to 1.2% of national GDP across countries. Sectors most affected by childhood stunting were manufacturing (non-metallic mineral, fabricated metal, other), garments and food sectors. Sale losses were highest for larger sized private firms. Across regions (representing 123 LMICs), US$700 million (Middle East and North Africa) to US$16.5 billion (East Asia and Pacific) monthly income was lost among private sector workers. Investing in stunting reduction interventions yields gains from US$2 to US$81 per $1 invested annually (or 100% to 8000% across countries). Across sectors, the highest returns were in elementary occupations (US$46) and the lowest were among agricultural workers (US$8). By gender, women incurred a higher income penalty from childhood stunting and earned less than men; due to their relatively higher earnings, the returns for investing in stunting reduction were consistently higher for men across most countries studied. Interpretation: Childhood stunting costs the private sector in LMICs billions of dollars in sales and earnings for the workforce annually. Returns to nutrition interventions show that there is an economic case to be made for investing in childhood nutrition, alongside a moral one for both the public and private sector. This research could be used to motivate strong public-private sector partnerships to invest in childhood undernutrition for benefits in the short and long-term.

Indexed as

ChildrenCostsEconomyLow and middle incomePrivate sectorStunting

Identifiers

PMID35308896
PMCPMC8927824
OpenAlexW4220780031

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.