Independent Consultant, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Matern Child Nutr. 2022 Apr;18(2):e13323. doi: 10.1111/mcn.13323. Epub 2022 Feb 8.
Economic evaluation of nutrition interventions that compares the costs to benefits is essential to priority-setting. However, there are unique challenges to synthesizing the findings of multi-sectoral nutrition interventions due to the diversity of potential benefits and the methodological differences among sectors in measuring them. This systematic review summarises literature on the interventions, sectors, benefit terminology and benefit types included in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and benefit-cost analyses (CEA, CUA and BCA, respectively) of nutrition interventions in low- and middle-income countries. A systematic search of five databases published from January 2010 to September 2019 with expert consultation yielded 2794 studies, of which 93 met all inclusion criteria. Eighty-seven per cent of the included studies included interventions delivered from only one sector, with almost half from the health sector (43%), followed by food/agriculture (27%), water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) (10%), and social protection (8%). Only 9% of studies assessed programmes involving more than one sector (health, food/agriculture, social protection and/or WASH). Eighty-one per cent of studies used more than one term to refer to intervention benefits. The included studies calculated 128 economic evaluation ratios (57 CEAs, 39 CUAs and 32 BCAs), and the benefits they included varied by sector. Nearly 60% measured a single benefit category, most frequently nutritional status improvements; other health benefits, cognitive/education gains, dietary diversity, food security, knowledge/attitudes/practices and income were included in less than 10% of all ratios. Additional economic evaluation of non-health and multi-sector interventions, and incorporation of benefits beyond nutritional improvements (including cost savings) in future economic evaluations is recommended.
经济评估营养干预措施,比较成本效益至关重要。然而,由于多部门营养干预措施潜在效益的多样性以及各部门衡量效益的方法学差异,综合这些措施的结果具有独特的挑战。本系统综述总结了关于营养干预措施的文献,包括在中低收入国家进行的成本效益分析(CEA)、成本效用分析(CUA)和成本效益分析(BCA)中纳入的干预措施、部门、效益术语和效益类型。通过专家咨询,对五个数据库进行了系统检索,检索时间为 2010 年 1 月至 2019 年 9 月,共检索到 2794 篇研究报告,其中 93 篇符合所有纳入标准。纳入的研究中,87%的研究只包括一个部门的干预措施,其中近一半(43%)来自卫生部门,其次是食品/农业(27%)、水、环境卫生和个人卫生(WASH)(10%)和社会保护(8%)。只有 9%的研究评估了涉及多个部门(卫生、食品/农业、社会保护和/或 WASH)的方案。81%的研究使用了一个以上的术语来指代干预措施的效益。纳入的研究计算了 128 个经济评估比(57 个 CEA、39 个 CUA 和 32 个 BCA),他们纳入的效益因部门而异。近 60%的研究测量了单一的效益类别,最常见的是营养状况的改善;其他健康效益、认知/教育收益、饮食多样性、粮食安全、知识/态度/实践以及收入在所有比率中不到 10%。建议对非卫生和多部门干预措施进行更多的经济评估,并在未来的经济评估中纳入营养改善以外的效益(包括成本节约)。