Impact of stakeholder perspectives on cost-effectiveness estimates of four specialized nutritious foods for preventing stunting and wasting in children 6–23 months in Burkina Faso
Authors: Shen Ye , Cliffer Ilana R. , Suri Devika J. , Langlois Breanne K. , Vosti Stephen A. , Webb Patrick , Rogers Beatrice L. 
Published: February 2020

Background

Multiple specialized nutritious food options are programmed for supplementation in humanitarian and development settings. However, comparative cost-effectiveness evidence is lacking, let alone incorporation of perspectives from uncompensated stakeholders. A Burkina Faso trial evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Corn Soy Blend Plus w/ oil (CSB+ w/oil, reference arm), Corn Soy Whey Blend w/oil (CSWB w/oil), Super Cereal Plus (SC+), and Ready-to-Use Supplementary Food (RUSF) in reducing stunting and wasting among children 6–23 months old. This paper presents cost-effectiveness findings from multiple stakeholders’ perspectives, including caregivers and program volunteers.

Methods

An activity-based costing with ingredients approach was used to summarize cost of the 18-month-long blanket supplementary feeding for each enrolled child (in 2018 USD). Time data were collected using self-reported and observational instruments. Cost-effectiveness relative to CSB+ w/oil assessed incremental cost per enrolled child against incremental outcomes: prevalence of stunting at 23 months of age and number of months of wasting. Two combined perspectives were compared:program(donor, implementer, and volunteer) versusprogram and caregiver(adding caregiver).

Results

A total of 6112 children were enrolled. While similar effectiveness was found in three arms (CSWB w/oil was less effective), costs differed. Product cost and caregiver time to prepare study foods were major drivers of cross-arm cost differences from the respective combined perspective. The two major drivers were used to construct uncertainty ranges of cost per enrolled child fromprogram and caregiverperspective: $317 ($279- $355) in CSB+ w/oil, $350 ($327- $373) in CSWB w/oil, $387 ($371- $403) in RUSF, and $434 ($365- $503) in SC+. Cost fromprogram and caregiverperspective was a substantial increase fromprogramperspective. CSB+ w/oil was most cost-effective in reducing stunting and wasting, and this main finding was robust to changing perspectives and all corresponding sensitivity analyses when uncompensated time was valued at minimum wage ($0.36/h). The break-even point for uncompensated time valuation is >$0.84/h, where RUSF became the most cost-effective from theprogram and caregiverperspective. Relative cost-effectiveness rankings among the other three arms depended on choice of perspectives, and were sensitive to values assigned to product cost, international freight cost, opportunity cost of time, and outcomes of a hypothetical control. Volunteer opportunity cost did not affect arm comparisons, but lack of compensation resulted in negative financial consequences for caregivers.

Conclusions

Evaluating cost-effectiveness by incorporating uncompensated stakeholders provided crucial implementation insights around nutrition products and programming.

Trial registration

Trial registration number:NCT02071563.

Name of registry:ClinicalTrials.gov

URL of registry:https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02071563?type=Intr&cond=Malnutrition&cntry=BF&draw=2&rank=9

Date of registration: February 26, 2014.

Date of enrollment of first participant: July 2014.