These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Cost effectiveness of a latrine revision programme in Kabul, Afghanistan.
    Author: Meddings DR, Ronald LA, Marion S, Pinera JF, Oppliger A.
    Journal: Bull World Health Organ; 2004 Apr; 82(4):281-9. PubMed ID: 15259257.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: We assessed a household latrine revision intervention implemented in Kabul, Afghanistan for evidence of a reduction in diarrhoeal disease. METHODS: A case-control design involving 1238 cases and 625 controls was used. Logistic regression modelling was performed both for children < 5 years and < or = 11 years, and the parameter estimates were later used with results from a stratified cluster sample survey. This survey used a verbal autopsy methodology to enable an estimation of the number of deaths averted over a 1-year period. A cost-effectiveness analysis using direct and indirect costs for the intervention was then conducted and the results compared with primary health care interventions identified from a Medline search. FINDINGS: Conditional logistic regression showed that patients were less likely than controls to live in households with revised latrines (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.42-0.77 for children < 5 years, and OR 0.53, 95% = CI 0.41-0.67 for children < or = 11 years). The results from the survey of cause-specific mortality by verbal autopsy enabled estimation of the number of deaths averted over a 1-year period due to the intervention; these estimations were 235 (95% CI = 109-360) for children < 5 years and 285 (95% CI = 180-397) for children < or = 11 years. Estimates of cost effectiveness ranged from approximately US dollars 1800 to US dollars 4100 per death averted depending on age and payer perspective. CONCLUSION: These estimates are conservative because only 1 year of effectiveness is considered, yet they compare favourably with a review of other paediatric interventions. These results are important because funding for sanitation interventions is often limited by the belief that the interventions are not cost-effective.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]