The Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of an Integrated Wasting Prevention and Screening Intervention Package in Burkina Faso and Mali
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about costs and cost effectiveness of interventions that integrate wasting prevention into screening for child wasting. OBJECTIVES: This study's objective was to estimate the cost and cost-effectiveness of an intervention that integrated behavior change communication (BCC) and small-quantity lipid-based nutrient supplements (SQ-LNS) into platforms for wasting screening in Burkina Faso (a facility-based platform, where BCC was enhanced compared with standard care) and Mali (a community-based platform, with standard BCC). METHODS: Activity-based costing was used to estimate the cost per child-contact for the intervention and the comparison group, which did not receive the intervention. Costs were ascertained from accounting records, interviews, surveys, and observations. The number of child-contacts was calculated using population size estimates and average attendance rates for each service. Costs per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted were estimated using a Markov model populated with data from the parent trials on impact of wasting incidence and treatment coverage. RESULTS: In the intervention group in Burkina Faso, the cost per child-contact of facility-based screening was $0.85 of enhanced BCC was $4.28, and of SQ-LNS was $8.86. In Mali, the cost per child-contact of community-based screening was $0.57, standard BCC was $0.72, and SQ-LNS was $4.14. Although no SQ-LNS costs were incurred in the comparison groups (hence lower total costs), costs per child-contact for screening and BCC were higher because coverage of these services was lower. The intervention package cost $1073 per DALY averted in Burkina Faso and $747 in Mali. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of wasting prevention into screening for child wasting led to higher total costs but lower unit costs than standard screening due to increased coverage. Greater cost-effectiveness could be achieved if BCC were strengthened and led to improved caregiver health and nutrition practices and if screening triggered appropriate use of services and higher treatment coverage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".