Cost-efficiency and Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) help determine the most efficient way to allocate resources for maximum impact.
CEAs compare the costs and outcomes of different interventions. Unlike Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), which converts outcomes into monetary terms, a CEA measures effectiveness in natural units such as cases treated, lives saved or Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) averted.
Using CEA in nutrition programming:
- maximises resource use, ensuring limited funds can achieve the highest possible impact
- supports decision making, providing evidence for prioritising interventions
- facilitates comparability, assessing cost-effectiveness across different approaches
- aids scalability, guiding the expansion of efficient strategies.
We have conducted costing and cost-effectiveness studies on nutrition treatment programmes in countries including Mali, Niger, Mauritania, Pakistan, Burkina Faso, South Sudan and Kenya.
Cost-efficiency analysis: cost per output
Cost-efficiency analysis assesses the cost of the activity, focusing on outputs such as cost per child reached or cost per person reached.
This enables organisations to compare delivery models, track spending or improve operational efficiency.
Cost-effectiveness analysis: cost per outcome
Cost-effectiveness analysis assesses the cost to achieve outcomes, such as the cost per case of malnutrition prevented.
This analysis helps organisations measure impact and understand whether the intervention is worth the investment. It typically involves a research study or pilot with comparison groups.
Resources needed
While the outputs are different, the resources needed and methodology are similar.
Both analyses use quantitative data analysis and research. The standardised method takes approximately 3 months over the project cycle:
- Step 1: Study design
- Step 2: Data collection, planning and execution
- Step 3: Analysis, planning and execution
- Step 4: Reporting