Costs of community-wide mass drug administration and school-based deworming for soil-transmitted helminths: evidence from a randomised controlled trial in Benin, India and Malawi

Objectives Current guidelines for the control of soil-transmitted helminths (STH) recommend deworming children and other high-risk groups, primarily using school-based deworming (SBD) programmes. However, targeting individuals of all ages through community-wide mass drug administration (cMDA) may interrupt STH transmission in some settings. We compared the costs of cMDA to SBD to inform decision-making about future updates to STH policy. Design We conducted activity-based microcosting of cMDA and SBD for 2 years in Benin, India and Malawi within an ongoing cMDA trial. Setting Field sites and collaborating research institutions. Primary and secondary outcomes We calculated total financial and opportunity costs and costs per treatment administered (unit costs in 2019 USD ($)) from the service provider perspective, including costs related to community drug distributors and other volunteers. Results On average, cMDA unit costs were more expensive than SBD in India ($1.17 vs $0.72) and Malawi ($2.26 vs $1.69), and comparable in Benin ($2.45 vs $2.47). cMDA was more expensive than SBD in part because most costs (similar to 60%) were 'supportive costs' needed to deliver treatment with high coverage, such as additional supervision and electronic data capture. A smaller fraction of cMDA costs (similar to 30%) was routine expenditures (eg, drug distributor allowances). The remaining cMDA costs (similar to 10%) were opportunity costs of staff and volunteer time. A larger percentage of SBD costs was opportunity costs for teachers and other government staff (between similar to 25% and 75%). Unit costs varied over time and were sensitive to the number of treatments administered. Conclusions cMDA was generally more expensive than SBD. Accounting for local staff time (volunteers, teachers, health workers) in community programmes is important and drives higher cost estimates than commonly recognised in the literature. Costs may be lower outside of a trial setting, given a reduction in supportive costs used to drive higher treatment coverage and economies of scale.