{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: The costs of Suaahara II, a complex scaled-up multisectoral nutrition programme in Nepal.
{Author}: Choo EM;Kemp CG;Sagun KC;Paudel U;Wun J;Cunningham K;Acharya P;Rana PP;Levin C;
{Journal}: Matern Child Nutr
{Volume}: 0
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 May 5
{Factor}: 3.66
{DOI}: 10.1111/mcn.13658
{Abstract}: Limited evidence exists on the costs of scaled-up multisectoral nutrition programmes. Such evidence is crucial to assess intervention value and affordability. Evidence is also lacking on the opportunity costs of implementers and participants engaging in community-level interventions. We help to fill this gap by estimating the full financial and economic costs of the United States Agency for International Development-funded Suaahara II (SII) programme, a scaled-up multisectoral nutrition programme in Nepal (2016-2023). We applied a standardized mixed methods costing approach to estimate total and unit costs over a 3.7-year implementation period. Financial expenditure data from national and subnational levels were combined with economic cost estimates assessed using in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with staff, volunteers, community members, and government partners in four representative districts. The average annual total cost was US$908,948 per district, with economic costs accounting for 47% of the costs. The annual unit cost was US$132 per programme participant (mother in the 1000-day period between conception and a child's second birthday) reached. Annual costs ranged from US$152 (mountains) to US$118 (plains) per programme participant. Personnel (63%) were the largest input cost driver, followed by supplies (11%). Community events (29%) and household counselling visits (17%) were the largest activity cost drivers. Volunteer cadres contributed significant time to the programme, with female community health volunteers spending a substantial amount of time (27 h per month) on SII activities. Multisectoral nutrition programmes can be costly, especially when taking into consideration volunteer and participant opportunity costs. This study provides much-needed evidence of the costs of scaled-up multisectoral nutrition programmes for future comparison against benefits.