Skip to main content

Table 5 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Based on Hypothetical Control Scenarios for Cost per Additional Stunting Case Averted1

From: 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

 CSB+ w/oilSC+RUSFCSWB w/oil
Adjusted Prevalence Of Stunting At End-Line In Hypothetical ControlStunting Averted, Percentage Points2Cost Per Additional Stunting Case Averted1Stunting Averted, Percentage PointsCost Per Additional Stunting Case Averted1Stunting Averted, Percentage PointsCost Per Additional Stunting Case Averted1Stunting Averted, Percentage PointsCost Per Additional Stunting Case Averted1
21.1%1.012,6590.830,364−0.8Dominated3−6.4Dominated3
25.1%5.025324.849553.28048−2.4Dominated3
31.1%10.012669.824228.231172.65668
36.1%15.084414.8160213.219337.61924
41.1%20.063319.8119718.2140112.61159
46.1%25.050624.895623.2109817.6829
  1. 1 Cost per additional stunting case averted for each intervention arm was calculated as the incremental cost per child divided by incremental % stunting averted at end-line between the respective intervention arm and the specified hypothetical control value. Cost (in USD) and effectiveness (in %) results used in this analysis excluded LTFU
  2. 2 CSB+ w/oil had the lowest point estimate for stunting, and thus was used to construct hypothetical control values by adding 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 percentage points. The maximum value of 25 percentage points was determined based on Burkina Faso DHS data in 2010
  3. 3 “Dominated” is an economic evaluation term to describe an intervention arm being both more expensive and less or equally effective compared the comparator (in this case the hypothetical control) which rules out the need to calculate an ICER