The costs of implementing anaemia reduction interventions among women fish processors in Ghana.

Abstract

Background: Anaemia among women of reproductive age (WRA) remains persistently high in Ghana, affecting 41% in 2022. Women in low-income communities in Ghana engaged in fish processing activities are at increased risk of anaemia due to inadequate diets, exposure to infectious pathogens, and pollutants. The Invisible Fishers (IFs) project was implemented among women fish processors in their reproductive age in Central and Volta regions of Ghana to mitigate anaemia. Despite the efficacy, feasibility and scalability of the intervention, the cost of implementing the intervention is unknown. The objective of this study was to estimate the costs of implementing the IFs project in Ghana.

Methods: We used micro-costing approach to analyse the costs of implementing the IFs project. Data were collected as part of a pilot randomized control trial with three interventions: Behaviour Change Communication (BCC), Strengthening Market Engagement of fish processors plus Behaviour Change Communication (SME + BCC), and Fish Smoking Technology and Practices plus Behaviour Change Communication (FST + BCC). The interventions were delivered to 60 women fish processors in the Central region and 60 in Volta region. The cost of the intervention was estimated from the societal perspective. Economic costs were categorized as direct costs (i.e. personnel, transportation, meetings, training, and monitoring) and indirect cost (i.e. value of productive time lost due to women and community volunteers' participation in the activities of the IFs project).

Results: The FST + BCC had the highest average cost per beneficiary (US$11898.62), followed by the SME + BCC (US8962.93). The least expensive was the BCC (US$4651.93) over the intervention period of 18 months. Recurrent costs constituted the largest component of economic costs (98%). Key drivers of direct costs were personnel (58%), administrative expenses (14%), and transportation (7%).

Conclusion: There is a high cost for implementing interventions included in the IFs project. Planning and scaling -up of the interventions across larger populations could bring about economies of scale to reduce the average cost of the interventions.