Open AccessThe economic costs of a multisectoral nutrition programme implemented through a credit platform in Bangladesh
Author(s) -
Thai Giang,
Margolies Amy,
Gelli Aulo,
Sultasrin,
Choo Esther,
Kumar Neha,
Levin Carol
Publication year - 2023
Publication title -
maternal and child nutrition
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.181
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1740-8709
pISSN - 1740-8695
DOI - 10.1111/mcn.13441
Subject(s) - medicine , activity based costing , malnutrition , psychological intervention , agriculture , total cost , cost–benefit analysis , economic evaluation , economics , nursing , accounting , ecology , pathology , biology
Bangladesh struggles with undernutrition in women and young children. Nutrition‐sensitive agriculture programmes can help address rural undernutrition. However, questions remain on the costs of multisectoral programmes. This study estimates the economic costs of the Targeting and Re‐aligning Agriculture to Improve Nutrition (TRAIN) programme, which integrated nutrition behaviour change and agricultural extension with a credit platform to support women's income generation. We used the Strengthening Economic Evaluation for Multisectoral Strategies for Nutrition (SEEMS‐Nutrition) approach. The approach aligns costs with a multisectoral nutrition typology, identifying inputs and costs along programme impact pathways. We measure and allocate costs for activities and inputs, combining expenditures and micro‐costing. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected retrospectively from implementers and beneficiaries. Expenditure data and economic costs were combined to calculate incremental economic costs. The intervention was designed around a randomised control trial. Incremental costs are presented by treatment arm. The total incremental cost was $795,040.34 for a 3.5‐year period. The annual incremental costs per household were US$65.37 (Arm 2), USD$114.15 (Arm 3) and $157.11 (Arm 4). Total costs were led by nutrition counselling (37%), agriculture extension (12%), supervision (12%), training (12%), monitoring and evaluation (9%) and community events (5%). Total input costs were led by personnel (68%), travel (12%) and supplies (7%). This study presents the total incremental costs of an agriculture‐nutrition intervention implemented through a microcredit platform. Costs per household compare favourably with similar interventions. Our results illustrate the value of a standardised costing approach for comparison with other multisectoral nutrition interventions.