Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35725241›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2022

Priority setting in early childhood development: an analytical framework for economic evaluation of interventions.

Stéphane Verguet, Sarah Bolongaita, Anthony Morgan, Nandita Perumal, Christopher R Sudfeld, Aisha K Yousafzai, Günther Fink

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Stéphane VerguetDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA verguet@hsph.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4128-0849
Sarah BolongaitaDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Anthony MorganDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Nandita PerumalDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Christopher R SudfeldDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Aisha K YousafzaiDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Günther FinkUniversity of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7525-3668

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly childhood development (ECD) sets the foundation for healthy and successful lives with important ramifications for education, labour market outcomes and other domains of well-being. Even though a large number of interventions that promote ECD have been implemented and evaluated globally, there is currently no standardised framework that allows a comparison of the relative cost-effectiveness of these interventions.

methodsWe first reviewed the existing literature to document the main approaches that have been used to assess the relative effectiveness of interventions that promote ECD, including early parenting and at-home psychosocial stimulation interventions. We then present an economic evaluation framework that builds on these reviewed approaches and focuses on the immediate impact of interventions on motor, cognitive, language and socioemotional skills. Last, we apply our framework to compute the relative cost-effectiveness of interventions for which recent effectiveness and costing data were published. For this last part, we relied on a recently published review to obtain effect sizes documented in a consistent manner across interventions.

findingsOur framework enables direct value-for-money comparison of interventions across settings. Cost-effectiveness estimates, expressed in $ per units of improvement in ECD outcomes, vary greatly across interventions. Given that estimated costs vary by orders of magnitude across interventions while impacts are relatively similar, cost-effectiveness rankings are dominated by implementation costs and the interventions with higher value for money are generally those with a lower implementation cost (eg, psychosocial interventions involving limited staff).

conclusionsWith increasing attention and investment into ECD programmes, consistent assessments of the relative cost-effectiveness of available interventions are urgently needed. This paper presents a unified analytical framework to address this need and highlights the rather remarkable range in both costs and cost-effectiveness across currently available intervention strategies.

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentChild, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisHumanschild healthhealth economicspublic health

Identifiers

PMID35725241
PMCPMC9214350

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.