» Articles » PMID: 33280036

Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Address Undernutrition: a Systematic Review

Overview
Date 2020 Dec 6
PMID 33280036
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Strategies to address undernutrition in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) include various interventions implemented through different sectors of the economy. Our aim is to provide an overview of published economic evaluations of such interventions and to compare and contrast evaluations of interventions in different areas. We reviewed economic evaluations of nutrition interventions in LMICs published since 2015 and/or included in the Tufts Global registry or Disease Control Priorities 3rd edition. We categorized the studies by intervention type (preventive; therapeutic; fortification; delivery platforms), nutritional deficiency addressed and characteristics of the economic evaluation (e.g. type of model, costs and outcomes included). Of the 62 economic evaluations identified, 56 (90%) were cost-effectiveness analyses. Twenty-two (36%) evaluations investigated fortification and 23 (37%) preventive interventions. Forty-three percent of the evaluations of preventive interventions did not include a model, whereas most of fortification strategies used the same reference model. We identified different trends in cost categories and inclusion of health and non-health outcomes across evaluations in the four different topic areas. To illustrate the implications of such trends for decision-making, we compared a set of studies evaluating alternative strategies to combat zinc deficiency. We showed that the use of 'off-the-shelf' models and tools can potentially conceal what outcomes and costs and value judgements are used. Comparing interventions across different areas is fundamental to assist decision-makers in developing their nutrition strategy. Systematic differences in the economic evaluations of interventions delivered within and outside the health sector can undermine the ability to prioritize alternative nutrition strategies.

Citing Articles

Digital tools and technologies used in food fortification: A scoping review.

Vasta F, Friesen V, Jungjohann S, Nyangaresi A, Mkambula P, Morrison T Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2025; 1544(1):106-124.

PMID: 39808587 PMC: 11829327. DOI: 10.1111/nyas.15276.


Preventing chronic malnutrition in children under 2 years in rural Angola (MuCCUA trial): protocol for the economic evaluation of a three-arm community cluster randomised controlled trial.

Martin-Canavate R, Custodio E, Trigo E, Romay-Barja M, Herrador Z, Aguado I BMJ Open. 2023; 13(12):e073349.

PMID: 38110392 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073349.


The economic costs of a multisectoral nutrition programme implemented through a credit platform in Bangladesh.

Thai G, Margolies A, Gelli A, Sultana N, Choo E, Kumar N Matern Child Nutr. 2022; 19(1):e13441.

PMID: 36254494 PMC: 9749601. DOI: 10.1111/mcn.13441.


Economic Evaluation of Nutrition-Sensitive Agricultural Interventions to Increase Maternal and Child Dietary Diversity and Nutritional Status in Rural Odisha, India.

Haghparast-Bidgoli H, Harris-Fry H, Kumar A, Pradhan R, Mishra N, Padhan S J Nutr. 2022; 152(10):2255-2268.

PMID: 35687367 PMC: 9535442. DOI: 10.1093/jn/nxac132.


Economic evaluation of an early childhood development center-based agriculture and nutrition intervention in Malawi.

A G, Cg K, A M, A T, M K, C L Food Secur. 2022; 14(1):67-80.

PMID: 35222745 PMC: 8858302. DOI: 10.1007/s12571-021-01203-6.


References
1.
Martins V, Toledo Florencio T, Grillo L, Franco M, Martins P, Clemente A . Long-lasting effects of undernutrition. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011; 8(6):1817-46. PMC: 3137999. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph8061817. View

2.
Desmond C, Bland R, Boyce G, Coovadia H, Coutsoudis A, Rollins N . Scaling-up exclusive breastfeeding support programmes: the example of KwaZulu-Natal. PLoS One. 2008; 3(6):e2454. PMC: 2413404. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002454. View

3.
Shillcutt S, Lefevre A, Fischer-Walker C, Taneja S, Black R, Mazumder S . Cost-effectiveness analysis of the diarrhea alleviation through zinc and oral rehydration therapy (DAZT) program in rural Gujarat India: an application of the net-benefit regression framework. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2017; 15:9. PMC: 5465559. DOI: 10.1186/s12962-017-0070-y. View

4.
Nkonki L, Tugendhaft A, Hofman K . A systematic review of economic evaluations of CHW interventions aimed at improving child health outcomes. Hum Resour Health. 2017; 15(1):19. PMC: 5331680. DOI: 10.1186/s12960-017-0192-5. View

5.
Sanders G, Neumann P, Basu A, Brock D, Feeny D, Krahn M . Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 2016; 316(10):1093-103. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.12195. View