> Details

Lopez Garcia, Italo; Saya, Uzaib Y.; Luoto, Jill E.

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

Reference
management

Bookmarks

Remove from
bookmarks

Share this on Whatsapp

Close

Bookmarks



You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
  • Media type: E-Article
  • Title: Cost-effectiveness and economic returns of group-based parenting interventions to promote early childhood development: Results from a randomized controlled trial in rural Kenya
  • Contributor: Lopez Garcia, Italo; Saya, Uzaib Y.; Luoto, Jill E.
  • imprint: Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2021
  • Published in: PLOS Medicine
  • Language: English
  • DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003746
  • ISSN: 1549-1676
  • Origination:
  • Footnote:
  • Description: <jats:sec id="sec001"> <jats:title>Background</jats:title> <jats:p>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).</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec id="sec002"> <jats:title>Methods and findings</jats:title> <jats:p>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.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec id="sec003"> <jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title> <jats:p>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.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec id="sec004"> <jats:title>Trial registration</jats:title> <jats:p>This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03548558" xlink:type="simple">NCT03548558</jats:ext-link>, June 7, 2018. American Economic Association RCT Registry trial <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/2913" xlink:type="simple">AEARCTR-0002913</jats:ext-link>.</jats:p> </jats:sec>
  • Access State: Open Access