ArticleBMJ global health2025
Benefit-cost analysis of an integrated package of interventions during preconception, pregnancy and early childhood in India.
Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe have previously shown that an integrated intervention package delivered during preconception, pregnancy and early childhood substantially reduces low birth weight and stunting at 24 months of age compared with routine care. Now we conduct a benefit-cost analysis to estimate the return on investment of this integrated approach in India. This increases the policy relevance of trial results, given the low investment in healthcare in India.
methodsWe used data from 13 500 participants in the Women and Infant Integrated Interventions for Growth Study (WINGS). Integrated delivery of healthcare, nutrition, water, sanitation and hygiene (WaSH), and psychosocial care interventions during preconception period, or pregnancy and early childhood, or both (full package), was compared with routine care. We converted reduction in mortality, morbidity and increase in productivity to monetary values and calculated the benefit-cost ratio. We used primary and secondary trial health outcomes from the WINGS trial to calculate benefits, and we collected costs prospectively during the trial. Uncertainty was explored in a one-way sensitivity analysis. We applied a discount rate of 3% per annum to both costs and benefits, considering the purchasing power parity (PPP) of US dollars in 2021.
resultsEvery dollar invested returned 6.1$ PPP for interventions during preconception, 9.9$ PPP for pregnancy and early childhood interventions and 3.7$ PPP for the full package of interventions compared with routine care in the base case scenario. The return to investment was positive (>4.6$ PPP per 1$ PPP invested) for pregnancy and early childhood interventions in all scenarios of the sensitivity analysis. The net monetary benefits of the interventions ranged between 7364 and 25 917$ PPP.
conclusionOur results suggest that integrated and concurrent delivery of healthcare, nutrition, WaSH and psychosocial care interventions during pregnancy and early childhood yield positive economic returns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.