Cargando…

The cost of preventing undernutrition: cost, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of three cash-based interventions on nutrition outcomes in Dadu, Pakistan

Cash-based interventions (CBIs) increasingly are being used to deliver humanitarian assistance and there is growing interest in the cost-effectiveness of cash transfers for preventing undernutrition in emergency contexts. The objectives of this study were to assess the costs, cost-efficiency and cos...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Trenouth, Lani, Colbourn, Timothy, Fenn, Bridget, Pietzsch, Silke, Myatt, Mark, Puett, Chloe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6005105/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29912462
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czy045
_version_ 1783332641529921536
author Trenouth, Lani
Colbourn, Timothy
Fenn, Bridget
Pietzsch, Silke
Myatt, Mark
Puett, Chloe
author_facet Trenouth, Lani
Colbourn, Timothy
Fenn, Bridget
Pietzsch, Silke
Myatt, Mark
Puett, Chloe
author_sort Trenouth, Lani
collection PubMed
description Cash-based interventions (CBIs) increasingly are being used to deliver humanitarian assistance and there is growing interest in the cost-effectiveness of cash transfers for preventing undernutrition in emergency contexts. The objectives of this study were to assess the costs, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness in achieving nutrition outcomes of three CBIs in southern Pakistan: a ‘double cash’ (DC) transfer, a ‘standard cash’ (SC) transfer and a ‘fresh food voucher’ (FFV) transfer. Cash and FFVs were provided to poor households with children aged 6–48 months for 6 months in 2015. The SC and FFV interventions provided $14 monthly and the DC provided $28 monthly. Cost data were collected via institutional accounting records, interviews, programme observation, document review and household survey. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per case of wasting, stunting and disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Beneficiary costs were higher for the cash groups than the voucher group. Net total cost transfer ratios (TCTRs) were estimated as 1.82 for DC, 2.82 for SC and 2.73 for FFV. Yet, despite the higher operational costs, the FFV TCTR was lower than the SC TCTR when incorporating the participation cost to households, demonstrating the relevance of including beneficiary costs in cost-efficiency estimations. The DC intervention achieved a reduction in wasting, at $4865 per case averted; neither the SC nor the FFV interventions reduced wasting. The cost per case of stunting averted was $1290 for DC, $882 for SC and $883 for FFV. The cost per DALY averted was $641 for DC, $434 for SC and $563 for FFV without discounting or age weighting. These interventions are highly cost-effective by international thresholds. While it is debatable whether these resource requirements represent a feasible or sustainable investment given low health expenditures in Pakistan, these findings may provide justification for continuing Pakistan’s investment in national social safety nets.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6005105
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60051052018-06-21 The cost of preventing undernutrition: cost, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of three cash-based interventions on nutrition outcomes in Dadu, Pakistan Trenouth, Lani Colbourn, Timothy Fenn, Bridget Pietzsch, Silke Myatt, Mark Puett, Chloe Health Policy Plan Original Articles Cash-based interventions (CBIs) increasingly are being used to deliver humanitarian assistance and there is growing interest in the cost-effectiveness of cash transfers for preventing undernutrition in emergency contexts. The objectives of this study were to assess the costs, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness in achieving nutrition outcomes of three CBIs in southern Pakistan: a ‘double cash’ (DC) transfer, a ‘standard cash’ (SC) transfer and a ‘fresh food voucher’ (FFV) transfer. Cash and FFVs were provided to poor households with children aged 6–48 months for 6 months in 2015. The SC and FFV interventions provided $14 monthly and the DC provided $28 monthly. Cost data were collected via institutional accounting records, interviews, programme observation, document review and household survey. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per case of wasting, stunting and disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Beneficiary costs were higher for the cash groups than the voucher group. Net total cost transfer ratios (TCTRs) were estimated as 1.82 for DC, 2.82 for SC and 2.73 for FFV. Yet, despite the higher operational costs, the FFV TCTR was lower than the SC TCTR when incorporating the participation cost to households, demonstrating the relevance of including beneficiary costs in cost-efficiency estimations. The DC intervention achieved a reduction in wasting, at $4865 per case averted; neither the SC nor the FFV interventions reduced wasting. The cost per case of stunting averted was $1290 for DC, $882 for SC and $883 for FFV. The cost per DALY averted was $641 for DC, $434 for SC and $563 for FFV without discounting or age weighting. These interventions are highly cost-effective by international thresholds. While it is debatable whether these resource requirements represent a feasible or sustainable investment given low health expenditures in Pakistan, these findings may provide justification for continuing Pakistan’s investment in national social safety nets. Oxford University Press 2018-07 2018-06-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6005105/ /pubmed/29912462 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czy045 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contactjournals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Original Articles
Trenouth, Lani
Colbourn, Timothy
Fenn, Bridget
Pietzsch, Silke
Myatt, Mark
Puett, Chloe
The cost of preventing undernutrition: cost, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of three cash-based interventions on nutrition outcomes in Dadu, Pakistan
title The cost of preventing undernutrition: cost, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of three cash-based interventions on nutrition outcomes in Dadu, Pakistan
title_full The cost of preventing undernutrition: cost, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of three cash-based interventions on nutrition outcomes in Dadu, Pakistan
title_fullStr The cost of preventing undernutrition: cost, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of three cash-based interventions on nutrition outcomes in Dadu, Pakistan
title_full_unstemmed The cost of preventing undernutrition: cost, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of three cash-based interventions on nutrition outcomes in Dadu, Pakistan
title_short The cost of preventing undernutrition: cost, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of three cash-based interventions on nutrition outcomes in Dadu, Pakistan
title_sort cost of preventing undernutrition: cost, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of three cash-based interventions on nutrition outcomes in dadu, pakistan
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6005105/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29912462
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czy045
work_keys_str_mv AT trenouthlani thecostofpreventingundernutritioncostcostefficiencyandcosteffectivenessofthreecashbasedinterventionsonnutritionoutcomesindadupakistan
AT colbourntimothy thecostofpreventingundernutritioncostcostefficiencyandcosteffectivenessofthreecashbasedinterventionsonnutritionoutcomesindadupakistan
AT fennbridget thecostofpreventingundernutritioncostcostefficiencyandcosteffectivenessofthreecashbasedinterventionsonnutritionoutcomesindadupakistan
AT pietzschsilke thecostofpreventingundernutritioncostcostefficiencyandcosteffectivenessofthreecashbasedinterventionsonnutritionoutcomesindadupakistan
AT myattmark thecostofpreventingundernutritioncostcostefficiencyandcosteffectivenessofthreecashbasedinterventionsonnutritionoutcomesindadupakistan
AT puettchloe thecostofpreventingundernutritioncostcostefficiencyandcosteffectivenessofthreecashbasedinterventionsonnutritionoutcomesindadupakistan
AT trenouthlani costofpreventingundernutritioncostcostefficiencyandcosteffectivenessofthreecashbasedinterventionsonnutritionoutcomesindadupakistan
AT colbourntimothy costofpreventingundernutritioncostcostefficiencyandcosteffectivenessofthreecashbasedinterventionsonnutritionoutcomesindadupakistan
AT fennbridget costofpreventingundernutritioncostcostefficiencyandcosteffectivenessofthreecashbasedinterventionsonnutritionoutcomesindadupakistan
AT pietzschsilke costofpreventingundernutritioncostcostefficiencyandcosteffectivenessofthreecashbasedinterventionsonnutritionoutcomesindadupakistan
AT myattmark costofpreventingundernutritioncostcostefficiencyandcosteffectivenessofthreecashbasedinterventionsonnutritionoutcomesindadupakistan
AT puettchloe costofpreventingundernutritioncostcostefficiencyandcosteffectivenessofthreecashbasedinterventionsonnutritionoutcomesindadupakistan