Publicación:
"The comparative cost-effectiveness of an equity-focused approach to child survival, health, and nutrition: A modelling approach"

dc.contributor.author"Carrera, Carlos
dc.contributor.authorAzrack, Adeline
dc.contributor.authorBegkoyian, Genevieve
dc.contributor.authorPfaffmann, Jerome
dc.contributor.authorRibaira, Eric
dc.contributor.authorO'Connell, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorDoughty, Patricia
dc.contributor.authorAung, Kyaw Myint
dc.contributor.authorPrieto, Lorena
dc.contributor.authorRasanathan, Kumanan
dc.contributor.authorSharkey, Alyssa
dc.contributor.authorChopra, Mickey
dc.contributor.authorKnippenberg, Rudolf"
dc.date.accessioned2026-10-09T04:48:10Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.description.abstract"Progress on child mortality and undernutrition has seen widening inequities and a concentration of child deaths and undernutrition in the most deprived communities, threatening the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Conversely, a series of recent process and technological innovations have provided effective and efficient options to reach the most deprived populations. These trends raise the possibility that the perceived trade-off between equity and efficiency no longer applies for child health - that prioritising services for the poorest and most marginalised is now more effective and cost effective than mainstream approaches. We tested this hypothesis with a mathematicalmodelling approach by comparing the cost-effectiveness in terms of child deaths and stunting events averted between two approaches (from 2011-15 in 14 countries and one province): an equity-focused approach that prioritises the most deprived communities, and a mainstream approach that is representative of current strategies. We combined some existing models, notably the Marginal Budgeting for Bottlenecks Toolkit and the Lives Saved Tool, to do our analysis. We showed that, with the same level of investment, disproportionately higher effects are possible by prioritising the poorest and most marginalised populations, for averting both child mortality and stunting. Our results suggest that an equityfocused approach could result in sharper decreases in child mortality and stunting and higher cost-effectiveness than mainstream approaches, while reducing inequities in effective intervention coverage, health outcomes, and out-ofpocket spending between the most and least deprived groups and geographic areas within countries. Our findings should be interpreted with caution due to uncertainties around some of the model parameters and baseline data. Further research is needed to address some of these gaps in the evidence base. Strategies for improving child nutrition and survival, however, should account for an increasing prioritisation of the most deprived communities and the increased use of community-based interventions."
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61378-6
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84867336806
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14929/1377
dc.identifier.uuidbb3683ec-23c2-4b72-83d5-34020b0b03bd
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.
dc.relation.ispartofThe Lancet
dc.rightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec
dc.subject.ocdehttps://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.02.04
dc.subject.ods"ODS 9: Industria, innovación e infraestructura"
dc.title"The comparative cost-effectiveness of an equity-focused approach to child survival, health, and nutrition: A modelling approach"
dc.typehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.endPage1351
oaire.citation.issue9850
oaire.citation.startPage1341
oaire.citation.volume380

Archivos

Colecciones