Estimating program coverage in the treatment of acute malnutrition using population-based cluster survey methods: results from surveys in Burkina Faso, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Niger

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background Despite their utility for program planning, acute malnutrition treatment coverage estimates at the national and sub-national levels are rarely available. Prior work has identified methodological concerns with current approaches. Methods We estimated the point prevalence and treatment coverage of acute malnutrition in 11 districts (or similar subnational areas) across four high-burden countries in Africa using representative cluster-based population survey methods and compared these estimates to those derived from administrative data and other direct methods where available. We also aimed to assess information about risk factors for malnourished children by coverage status. Results The point estimate of coverage suggests that <20% of eligible children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM) were enrolled in treatment in nine administrative areas. We found that in some contexts, coverage estimates derived using administrative data are useful, while in others, they are not – and that their accuracy can vary by month and year. By comparison, coverage estimates from other direct methods were overestimated and/or outdated, and practitioners tended to overestimate coverage. Coverage did not differ significantly by sex or age of the child but did vary by mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) at assessment. Measured SAM coverage did not correlate either with measured SAM prevalence or with expected coverage estimated a priori by program staff. Conclusion Our findings suggest that in the assessed high-burden countries, many more children are eligible for treatment than are enrolled. We present this methodology as an alternative to existing primary methods and a complement to coverage estimates from routine program and population data.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.