IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0290379.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cognitive development among children in a low-income setting: Cost-effectiveness analysis of a maternal nutrition education intervention in rural Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Montasir Ahmed
  • Grace K M Muhoozi
  • Prudence Atukunda
  • Ane C Westerberg
  • Per O Iversen
  • Knut R Wangen

Abstract

Inadequate nutrition and insufficient stimulation in early childhood can lead to long-term deficits in cognitive and social development. Evidence for policy and decision-making regarding the cost of delivering nutrition education is lacking in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). In rural Uganda, we conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining the effect of a maternal nutrition education intervention on developmental outcomes among children aged 6–8 months. This intervention led to significantly improved cognitive scores when the children reached the age of 20–24 months. When considering the potential for this intervention’s future implementation, the desired effects should be weighed against the increased costs. This study therefore aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of this education intervention compared with current practice. Health outcome data were based on the RCT. Cost data were initially identified by reviewing publications from the RCT, while more detailed information was obtained by interviewing researchers involved in processing the intervention. This study considered a healthcare provider perspective for an 18-months’ time horizon. The control group was considered as the current practice for the future large-scale implementation of this intervention. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, including calculations of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). In addition, uncertainty in the results was characterized using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The ICER for the education intervention compared with current practice was USD ($) 16.50 per cognitive composite score gained, with an incremental cost of $265.79 and an incremental cognitive composite score of 16.11. The sensitivity analyses indicated the robustness of these results. The ICER was sensitive to changes in cognitive composite score and the cost of personnel. The education intervention can be considered cost-effective compared with the current practice. The outcome of this study, including the cost analysis, health outcome, cost-effectiveness, and sensitivity analysis, can be useful to inform policymakers and stakeholders about effective resource allocation processes in Uganda and possibly other LMIC.

Suggested Citation

  • Montasir Ahmed & Grace K M Muhoozi & Prudence Atukunda & Ane C Westerberg & Per O Iversen & Knut R Wangen, 2023. "Cognitive development among children in a low-income setting: Cost-effectiveness analysis of a maternal nutrition education intervention in rural Uganda," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(8), pages 1-16, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0290379
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0290379
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0290379&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0290379?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kapiriri, Lydia & Norheim, Ole Frithjof & Martin, Douglas K., 2007. "Priority setting at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels in Canada, Norway and Uganda," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 78-94, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sofaer, Neema & Kapiriri, Lydia & Atuyambe, Lynn M. & Otolok-Tanga, Erasmus & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2009. "Is the selection of patients for anti-retroviral treatment in Uganda fair?: A qualitative study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 33-42, June.
    2. Salome A. Bukachi & Washington Onyango-Ouma & Jared Maaka Siso & Isaac K. Nyamongo & Joseph K. Mutai & Anna Karin Hurtig & Øystein Evjen Olsen & Jens Byskov, 2014. "Healthcare priority setting in Kenya: a gap analysis applying the accountability for reasonableness framework," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(4), pages 342-361, October.
    3. Kapiriri, Lydia & Norheim, Ole F. & Martin, Douglas K., 2009. "Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 766-773, February.
    4. Ahumada-Canale, Antonio & Jeet, Varinder & Bilgrami, Anam & Seil, Elizabeth & Gu, Yuanyuan & Cutler, Henry, 2023. "Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 322(C).
    5. Bartosch, Patrick & Jaye, Chrystal & Crampton, Peter, 2024. "Moral economy and moral capital: A new approach to understanding health systems," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 352(C).
    6. Hipgrave, David B. & Alderman, Katarzyna Bolsewicz & Anderson, Ian & Soto, Eliana Jimenez, 2014. "Health sector priority setting at meso-level in lower and middle income countries: Lessons learned, available options and suggested steps," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 190-200.
    7. Anna Rybarczyk-Szwajkowska & Izabela Rydlewska-Liszkowska, 2021. "Priority Setting in the Polish Health Care System According to Patients’ Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-8, January.
    8. Owen-Smith, Amanda & Coast, Joanna & Donovan, Jenny, 2009. ""I can see where they're coming from, but when you're on the end of it ... you just want to get the money and the drug.": Explaining reactions to explicit healthcare rationing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 1935-1942, June.
    9. Melberg, Andrea, 2024. "Open and opaque? The performativity of open priorities in a Norwegian hospital," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 361(C).
    10. Kapiriri, Lydia & Razavi, Donya, 2017. "How have systematic priority setting approaches influenced policy making? A synthesis of the current literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(9), pages 937-946.
    11. Torbica, Aleksandra & Fattore, Giovanni, 2010. "Understanding the impact of economic evidence on clinical decision making: A discrete choice experiment in cardiology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(10), pages 1536-1543, May.
    12. Lois Orton & Ffion Lloyd-Williams & David Taylor-Robinson & Martin O'Flaherty & Simon Capewell, 2011. "The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes: Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-10, July.
    13. Ingrid Miljeteig & Frehiwot Berhane Defaye & Paul Wakim & Dawit Neema Desalegn & Yemane Berhane & Ole Frithjof Norheim & Marion Danis, 2019. "Financial risk protection at the bedside: How Ethiopian physicians try to minimize out-of-pocket health expenditures," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.
    14. Maluka, Stephen & Kamuzora, Peter & Sebastiån, Miguel San & Byskov, Jens & Olsen, Øystein E. & Shayo, Elizabeth & Ndawi, Benedict & Hurtig, Anna-Karin, 2010. "Decentralized health care priority-setting in Tanzania: Evaluating against the accountability for reasonableness framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(4), pages 751-759, August.
    15. Regier, Dean A. & Bentley, Colene & Mitton, Craig & Bryan, Stirling & Burgess, Michael M. & Chesney, Ellen & Coldman, Andy & Gibson, Jennifer & Hoch, Jeffrey & Rahman, Syed & Sabharwal, Mona & Sawka, , 2014. "Public engagement in priority-setting: Results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 130-139.
    16. Ottersen, Trygve & Førde, Reidun & Kakad, Meetali & Kjellevold, Alice & Melberg, Hans Olav & Moen, Atle & Ringard, Ånen & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2016. "A new proposal for priority setting in Norway: Open and fair," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 246-251.
    17. Jang, Sung-In & Nam, Jung-Mo & Choi, Jongwon & Park, Eun-Cheol, 2014. "Disease management index of potential years of life lost as a tool for setting priorities in national disease control using OECD health data," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 92-99.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0290379. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.