Research
Does Mass Deworming Affect Child Nutrition? Meta-analysis, Cost-effectiveness, and Statistical Power
Croke, Kevin, Joan Hamory Hicks, Eric Hsu, Michael Kremer, and Edward Miguel
2016
HealthEducation and Human CapitalResearch Methodology
The WHO has recently debated whether to reaffirm its long-standing recommendation of mass drug administration (MDA) in areas with more than 20% prevalence of soil-transmitted helminths (hookworm, whipworm, and roundworm). There is consensus that the relevant deworming drugs are safe and effective, so the key question facing policymakers is whether the expected benefits of MDA exceed the roughly $0.30 per treatment cost. The literature on long run educational and economic impacts of deworming suggests that this is the case. However, a recent meta-analysis by Taylor-Robinson et al. (2015) (hereafter TMSDG), disputes these findings. The authors conclude that while treatment of children known to be infected increases weight by 0.75 kg (95% CI: 0.24, 1.26; p=0.0038), there is substantial evidence that MDA has no impact on weight or other child outcomes. We update the TMSDG analysis by including studies omitted from that analysis and extracting additional data from included studies, such as deriving standard errors from p-values when the standard errors are not reported in the original article. The updated sample includes twice as many trials as analyzed by TMSDG, substantially improving statistical power. We find that the TMSDG analysis is underpowered: it would conclude that MDA has no effect even if the true effect were (1) large enough to be cost-effective relative to other interventions in similar populations, or (2) of a size that is consistent with results from studies of children known to be infected. The hypothesis of a common zero effect of multiple-dose MDA deworming on child weight at longest follow-up is rejected at the 10% level using the TMSDG dataset, and with a p-value < 0.001 using the updated sample. Applying either of two study classification approaches used in previous Cochrane Reviews (prior to TMSDG) also leads to rejection at the 5% level. In the full sample, including studies in environments where prevalence is low enough that the WHO does not recommend deworming, the average effect on child weight is 0.134 kg (95% CI: 0.031, 0.236, random effects estimation). In environments with greater than 20% prevalence, where the WHO recommends mass treatment, the average effect on child weight is 0.148 kg (95% CI: 0.039, 0.258). The implied average effect of MDA on infected children in the full sample (calculated by dividing estimated impact by worm prevalence for each study and applying a random effects model) is 0.301 kg. At 0.22 kg per U.S. dollar, the estimated average weight gain per dollar expenditure from deworming MDA is more than 35 times that from school feeding programs as estimated in RCTs. Under-powered meta-analyses (such as TMSDG) are common in health research, and this methodological issue will be increasingly important as growing numbers of economists and other social scientists conduct meta-analysis.
What are the economic benefits of mass deworming of children?World Economic Forum
Worms Win, Kids Lose? Our Statement.Evidence Action
Mapping the Worm Wars: What the Public Should Take Away from the Scientific Debate about Mass DewormingCenter for Global Development
Mass deworming: (Still) a best buy for international developmentVox EU
Meta-analyses were supposed to end scientific debates. Often, they only cause more controversyScience
Why I mostly believe in WormsThe GiveWell Blog
The scientific case for deworming childrenThomson Reuters Foundation
Worms: Identifying Impacts on Education and Health in the Presence of Treatment ExternalitiesPublished PaperAfrican DevelopmentHealthEducation and Human CapitalResearch Methodology2004
The case for mass treatment of intestinal helminths in endemic areasPublished PaperAfrican DevelopmentHealthEducation and Human CapitalResearch Methodology2015
Deworming and Development: Asking the Right Questions, Asking the Questions RightPublished PaperAfrican DevelopmentHealthEducation and Human CapitalResearch Methodology2009
Commentary: Deworming externalities and schooling impacts in Kenya: a comment on Aiken et al. (2015) and Davey et al. (2015)Published PaperAfrican DevelopmentHealthEducation and Human CapitalResearch Methodology2015
Anemia and School ParticipationPublished PaperHealthEducation and Human Capital2006
Twenty Year Economic Impacts of DewormingPublished PaperEducation and Human CapitalHealth2021
Worms at work: Long-run impacts of a child health investmentPublished PaperAfrican DevelopmentHealthEducation and Human CapitalResearch Methodology2016
Economics of Mass Deworming ProgramsBook ChapterAfrican DevelopmentHealthEducation and Human Capital2017
Should the WHO withdraw support for mass deworming?Published PaperAfrican DevelopmentHealthEducation and Human CapitalResearch Methodology2017
Commentary: Assessing long-run deworming impacts on education and economic outcomes: a comment on Jullien, Sinclair and Garner (2016)Published PaperAfrican DevelopmentHealthEducation and Human CapitalResearch Methodology2017