Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness and economic returns of group-based parenting interventions to promote early childhood development: Results from a randomized controlled trial in rural Kenya.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Early childhood development (ECD) programs can help address disadvantages for the 43% of children under 5 in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) experiencing compromised development. However, very few studies from LMIC settings include information on their program's cost-effectiveness or potential returns to investment. We estimated the cost-effectiveness, benefit-cost ratios (BCRs), and returns on investment (ROIs) for 2 effective group-based delivery models of an ECD parenting intervention that utilized Kenya's network of local community health volunteers (CHVs).

Methods and findings

Between October 1 and November 12, 2018, 1,152 mothers with children aged 6 to 24 months were surveyed from 60 villages in rural western Kenya. After baseline, villages were randomly assigned to one of 3 intervention arms: a group-only delivery model with 16 fortnightly sessions, a mixed-delivery model combining 12 group sessions with 4 home visits, and a control group. At endline (August 5 to October 31, 2019), 1,070 children were retained and assessed for primary outcomes including cognitive and receptive language development (with the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, Third Edition) and socioemotional development (with the Wolke scale). Children in the 2 intervention arms showed better developmental outcomes than children in the control arm, although the group-only delivery model generally had larger effects on children. Total program costs included provider's implementation costs collected during the intervention period using financial reports from the local nongovernmental organization (NGO) implementer, as well as societal costs such as opportunity costs to mothers and delivery agents. We combined program impacts with these total costs to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), as well as BCRs and the program's ROI for the government based on predictions of future lifetime wages and societal costs. Total costs per child were US$140 in the group-only arm and US$145 in the mixed-delivery arm. Because of higher intention-to-treat (ITT) impacts at marginally lower costs, the group-only model was the most cost-effective across all child outcomes. Focusing on child cognition in this arm, we estimated an ICER of a 0.37 standard deviation (SD) improvement in cognition per US$100 invested, a BCR of 15.5, and an ROI of 127%. A limitation of our study is that our estimated BCR and ROI necessarily make assumptions about the discount rate, income tax rates, and predictions of intervention impacts on future wages and schooling. We examine the sensitivity of our results to these assumptions.

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first economic evaluation of an effective ECD parenting intervention targeted to young children in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and the first to adopt a societal perspective in calculating cost-effectiveness that accounts for opportunity costs to delivery agents and program participants. Our cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost estimates are higher than most of the limited number of prior studies from LMIC settings providing information about costs. Our results represent a strong case for scaling similar interventions in impoverished rural settings, and, under reasonable assumptions about the future, demonstrate that the private and social returns of such investments are likely to largely outweigh their costs.

Trial registration

This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03548558, June 7, 2018. American Economic Association RCT Registry trial AEARCTR-0002913.

SUBMITTER: Lopez Garcia I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8478245 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEarly childhood development (ECD) programmes can help address early disadvantages for the 43% of children younger than 5 years in low-income and middle-income countries who have compromised development. We aimed to test the effectiveness of two group-based delivery models for an integrated ECD responsive stimulation and nutrition education intervention using Kenya's network of community health volunteers.MethodsWe implemented a multi-arm, cluster-randomised community effectiveness trial in three rural subcounties across 60 villages (clusters) in western Kenya. Eligible participants were mothers or female primary caregivers aged 15 years or older with children aged 6-24 months at enrolment. If married or in established relationships, fathers or male caregivers aged 18 years or older were also eligible. Villages were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to one of three groups: group-only delivery with 16 fortnightly sessions; mixed delivery combining 12 group sessions with four home visits; and a comparison group. Villages in the intervention groups were randomly assigned (1:1) to invite or not invite fathers and male caregivers to participate. Households were surveyed at baseline and immediately post-intervention. Assessors were masked. Primary outcomes were child cognitive and language development (score on the Bayley Scales of Infant Development third edition), socioemotional development (score on the Wolke scale), and parental stimulation (Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment inventory). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03548558.FindingsBetween Oct 1 and Nov 12, 2018, 1152 mother-child dyads were enrolled and randomly assigned (n=376 group-only intervention, n=400 mixed-delivery intervention, n=376 comparison group). At the 11-month endline survey (Aug 5-Oct 31, 2019), 1070 households were assessed for the primary outcomes (n=346 group only, n=373 mixed delivery, n=351 comparison). Children in group-only villages had higher cognitive (effect size 0·52 SD [95% CI 0·21-0·83]), receptive language (0·42 SD [0·08-0·77]), and socioemotional scores (0·23 SD [0·03-0·44]) than children in comparison villages at endline. Children in mixed-delivery villages had higher cognitive (0·34 SD [0·05-0·62]) and socioemotional scores (0·22 SD [0·05-0·38]) than children in comparison villages; there was no difference in language scores. Parental stimulation also improved for group-only (0·80 SD [0·49-1·11]) and mixed-delivery villages (0·77 SD [0·49-1·05]) compared with the villages in the comparison group. Including fathers in the intervention had no measurable effect on any of the primary outcomes.InterpretationParenting interventions delivered by trained community health volunteers in mother-child groups can effectively promote child development in low-resource settings and have great potential for scalability.FundingEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health.

Project description:Early childhood development (ECD) parenting interventions can improve child developmental outcomes in low-resource settings, but information about their implementation lags far behind evidence of their effectiveness, hindering their generalizability. This study presents results from an implementation evaluation of Msingi Bora ("Good Foundation" in Swahili), a group-based responsive stimulation and nutrition education intervention recently tested in a cluster randomized controlled trial across 60 villages in rural western Kenya. Msingi Bora successfully improved child cognitive, receptive language, and socioemotional outcomes, as well as parenting practices. We conducted a mixed methods implementation evaluation of the Msingi Bora trial between April 2018 and November 2019 following the Consolidated Advice for Reporting ECD implementation research (CARE) guidelines. We collected qualitative and quantitative data on program inputs, outputs, and outcomes, with a view to examining how aspects of the program's implementation, such as program acceptance and delivery fidelity, related to observed program impacts on parents and children. We found that study areas had initially very low levels of familiarity or knowledge of ECD among parents, community delivery agents, and even supervisory staff from our partner non-governmental organization (NGO). We increased training and supervision in response, and provided a structured manual to enable local delivery agents to successfully lead the sessions. There was a high level of parental compliance, with median attendance of 13 out of 16 fortnightly sessions over 8 months. For delivery agents, all measures of delivery performance and fidelity increased with program experience. Older, more knowledable delivery agents were associated with larger impacts on parental stimulation and child outcomes, and delivery agents with higher fidelity scores were also related to improved parenting practices. We conclude that a group-based parenting intervention delivered by local delivery agents can improve multiple child and parent outcomes. An upfront investment in training local trainers and delivery agents, and regular supervision of delivery of a manualized program, appear key to our documented success. Our results represent a promising avenue for scaling similar interventions in low-resource rural settings to serve families in need of ECD programming. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03548558, June 7, 2018. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03548558.

Project description:BackgroundPhysical inactivity is a key risk factor for chronic disease, but a growing number of people are not achieving the recommended levels of physical activity necessary for good health. Australians are no exception; despite Australia's image as a sporting nation, with success at the elite level, the majority of Australians do not get enough physical activity. There are many options for intervention, from individually tailored advice, such as counselling from a general practitioner, to population-wide approaches, such as mass media campaigns, but the most cost-effective mix of interventions is unknown. In this study we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity.Methods and findingsFrom evidence of intervention efficacy in the physical activity literature and evaluation of the health sector costs of intervention and disease treatment, we model the cost impacts and health outcomes of six physical activity interventions, over the lifetime of the Australian population. We then determine cost-effectiveness of each intervention against current practice for physical activity intervention in Australia and derive the optimal pathway for implementation. Based on current evidence of intervention effectiveness, the intervention programs that encourage use of pedometers (Dominant) and mass media-based community campaigns (Dominant) are the most cost-effective strategies to implement and are very likely to be cost-saving. The internet-based intervention program (AUS$3,000/DALY), the GP physical activity prescription program (AUS$12,000/DALY), and the program to encourage more active transport (AUS$20,000/DALY), although less likely to be cost-saving, have a high probability of being under a AUS$50,000 per DALY threshold. GP referral to an exercise physiologist (AUS$79,000/DALY) is the least cost-effective option if high time and travel costs for patients in screening and consulting an exercise physiologist are considered.ConclusionsIntervention to promote physical activity is recommended as a public health measure. Despite substantial variability in the quantity and quality of evidence on intervention effectiveness, and uncertainty about the long-term sustainability of behavioural changes, it is highly likely that as a package, all six interventions could lead to substantial improvement in population health at a cost saving to the health sector. Please see later in the article for Editors' Summary.

Project description:IntroductionTools that allow for in silico optimization of available malaria control strategies can assist the decision-making process for prioritizing interventions. The OpenMalaria stochastic simulation modeling platform can be applied to simulate the impact of interventions singly and in combination as implemented in Rachuonyo South District, western Kenya, to support this goal.MethodsCombinations of malaria interventions were simulated using a previously-published, validated model of malaria epidemiology and control in the study area. An economic model of the costs of case management and malaria control interventions in Kenya was applied to simulation results and cost-effectiveness of each intervention combination compared to the corresponding simulated outputs of a scenario without interventions. Uncertainty was evaluated by varying health system and intervention delivery parameters.ResultsThe intervention strategy with the greatest simulated health impact employed long lasting insecticide treated net (LLIN) use by 80% of the population, 90% of households covered by indoor residual spraying (IRS) with deployment starting in April, and intermittent screen and treat (IST) of school children using Artemether lumefantrine (AL) with 80% coverage twice per term. However, the current malaria control strategy in the study area including LLIN use of 56% and IRS coverage of 70% was the most cost effective at reducing disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) over a five year period.ConclusionsAll the simulated intervention combinations can be considered cost effective in the context of available resources for health in Kenya. Increasing coverage of vector control interventions has a larger simulated impact compared to adding IST to the current implementation strategy, suggesting that transmission in the study area is not at a level to warrant replacing vector control to a school-based screen and treat program. These results have the potential to assist malaria control program managers in the study area in adding new or changing implementation of current interventions.

Project description:ObjectivesDiabetes is the leading cause of disability-adjusted life years in Mexico, and cost-effective care models are needed to address the epidemic. We sought to evaluate the cost and cost-effectiveness of a novel community-based model of diabetes care in rural Mexico, compared with usual care.DesignWe performed time-driven activity-based costing to estimate annualised costs associated with typical diabetes care in Chiapas, Mexico, as well as a novel diabetes care model known as Compañeros En Salud Programa de Enfermedades Crónicas (CESPEC). We conducted Markov chain analysis to estimate the cost-effectiveness of CESPEC compared with usual care from a societal perspective. We used patient outcomes from CESPEC in 2016, as well as secondary data from existing literature.SettingRural primary care clinics in Chiapas, Mexico.ParticipantsAdults with diabetes.InterventionsCESPEC is a novel, comprehensive, diabetes care model that integrates community health workers, provider education, supply chain management and active case finding.Outcome measureThe primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness of CESPEC compared with care as usual, per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, expressed in 2016 US dollars.ResultsThe economic cost of the CESPEC diabetes model was US$144 per patient per year, compared with US$125 for diabetes care as usual. However, CESPEC care was associated with 0.13 additional years of health-adjusted life expectancy compared with usual care and 0.02 additional years in the first 5 years of treatment. This translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$2981 per QALY gained over a patient's lifetime and an ICER of US$10 444 over the first 5 years. Findings were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsCESPEC is a cost-effective, community-based model of diabetes care for patients in rural Mexico. Given the high prevalence and significant morbidity associated with diabetes in Mexico and other countries in Central America, this model should be considered for broader scale up and evaluation.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being are growing fields. Whether mental health promotion and prevention interventions provide value for money in children, adolescents, adults, and older adults is unclear. The aim of the current study is to update 2 existing reviews of cost-effectiveness studies in this field in order to determine whether such interventions are cost-effective.Methods and findingsElectronic databases (including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EconLit through EBSCO and Embase) were searched for published cost-effectiveness studies of prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being from 2008 to 2020. The quality of studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument (QHES). The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (# CRD42019127778). The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or return on investment (ROI) ratio across all studies. A total of 65 studies met the inclusion criteria of a full economic evaluation, of which, 23 targeted children and adolescents, 35 targeted adults, while the remaining targeted older adults. A large number of studies focused on prevention of depression and/or anxiety disorders, followed by promotion of mental health and well-being and other mental disorders. Although there was high heterogeneity in terms of the design among included economic evaluations, most studies consistently found that interventions for mental health prevention and promotion were cost-effective or cost saving. The review found that targeted prevention was likely to be cost-effective compared to universal prevention. Screening plus psychological interventions (e.g., cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT]) at school were the most cost-effective interventions for prevention of mental disorders in children and adolescents, while parenting interventions and workplace interventions had good evidence in mental health promotion. There is inconclusive evidence for preventive interventions for mental disorders or mental health promotion in older adults. While studies were of general high quality, there was limited evidence available from low- and middle-income countries. The review was limited to studies where mental health was the primary outcome and may have missed general health promoting strategies that could also prevent mental disorder or promote mental health. Some ROI studies might not be included given that these studies are commonly published in grey literature rather than in the academic literature.ConclusionsOur review found a significant growth of economic evaluations in prevention of mental disorders or promotion of mental health and well-being over the last 10 years. Although several interventions for mental health prevention and promotion provide good value for money, the varied quality as well as methodologies used in economic evaluations limit the generalisability of conclusions about cost-effectiveness. However, the finding that the majority of studies especially in children, adolescents, and adults demonstrated good value for money is promising. Research on cost-effectiveness in low-middle income settings is required.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42019127778.