Hide table of contents

Summary: Am I making a mistake in assuming that an obstetric fistula can be prevented for $20? If not, should TLYCS recommend a charity that prevents fistulas?

 

According to Fistula Foundation, a TLYCS recommended charity, one successful surgery costs a total of about $700. ($586$694)/surgery and 86% success rate.

It can cost about $0.1 to inform a person about a recommendation by a series of radio ads, newspapers, posters, and in-person interactions of local community members/volunteers so that 1 in 10 people implements an otherwise unthought of preventive healthcare behavior (% mask wearing graph). This should be $1/person to implement a preventive measure. Assuming that the prevalence of fistulas is 0.3% and that the measure is 50% effective, then the prevention of one case should cost ~$670, which is close to the $700 to provide curative treatment.

Another approach can be targeting midwives to share information on when to seek specialized care and identify at-risk patients, training doctors at government (free of charge) clinics, providing equipment, and potentially offering travel stipend to extremely poor households. Assuming that a midwife takes care of 10,000 patients and training costs $100, that is $0.01/patient (considering the 0.3% prevalence, $3.3/patient). A doctor can take care of 1,000 at-risk patients, with the counterfactual prevention rate of 8% (assuming that 10% of patients would have otherwise developed a fistula and that the success rate of an intervention is 80%). Their training and additional equipment can cost $1,000, so additional $12.5/patient. A travel stipend can be $10 and 20% of patients can need it. That is $2/patient. This may motivate or enable 50% of patients who would otherwise suffer from a fistula to visit the clinic. So, $4/patient assuming the counterfactual. In total, training midwives and doctors, providing equipment, and providing travel stipend can prevent an obstetric fistula for about $20. This targeted preventive healthcare cost is about 35× lower than curative healthcare cost.

 

The counterargument is that all midwives and doctors are trained, have equipment, and travel stipend is available or that the additional cost is much higher for the remaining ones, which I do not think is the case.

 

Is there an organization working on preventing fistulas? Should TLYCS recommend that charity instead?

New Answer
New Comment


1 Answers sorted by

Tldr: Yes, it may be more cost-effective to prevent than to treat obstetric fistulas. Yes, there is an organisation working on preventing fistulas, and yes, TLYCS should probably consider it, but not necessarily for that reason. The cost of preventing vs treating obstetric fistula (OF) is comparable, but preventing OF has additional benefits such as preventing the associated stillbirth, infertility, psychological trauma, and social detriments. Furthermore, the life-saving value of training midwives in low HDI countries far outweighs the value of OF prevention generated by the same intervention. 

Fully training one midwife to international standards, through the Catherine Hamlin Fistula Foundation (CHFF) costs 18,000 AUD. I would estimate that one midwife is likely to attend something closer to 5000 births across their career, although they may also drive change by providing family planning services and directly or indirectly educating many members of a community besides the birthing women they attend. 

According to CHFF

"When a Hamlin midwife is placed in a rural area [in Ethiopia], the number of new fistulas drops to zero in nearby villages!" 

We know that OF is highly preventable with basic educational and healthcare shifts because it is virtually unheard of in high-income countries, even in comparatively disadvantaged populations. If "drops to zero" reflects an OF RR of ~0-0.2 in communities cared for by CHFF midwives, the prevalence of OF in these areas is ~0.4% per birth, and one midwife attends ~5000 births, that midwife may only prevent 16-20 obstetric fistulae across their career. That means simply training midwives in Ethiopia (and comparable countries) could prevent OF in the absence of any other interventions, for a similar cost per fistula to $619 surgical repair, but with far greater reduction in suffering. In particular, prevention of OF also prevents many of the stillbirths which would otherwise occur alongside 93% of cases. Similarly, OF is strongly associated with infertility; divorce; mental health conditions; and years of a mother's separation from her children and community, due to the stigma of OF-related incontinence. These flow on effects of OF are far more difficult to reverse with surgery than the injury itself. 

To me, it seems unlikely that additional interventions, with the possible exception of travel stipends, would increase the cost-effectiveness of prevention, compared to midwifery training alone. I am assuming that midwives can provide key education, e.g., regarding child marriage, early pregnancy, and nutrition, and that facilities for common obstetric interventions are already available. It seems likely that available medical resources in areas with high rates of OF are under utilised, and would continue to be so even with greater funding, due to ~70% of birthing women lacking an attendant trained in detecting and escalating intrapartum abnormalities as needed. If these assumptions are valid, investing in media interventions, training doctors or building hospitals/specialist clinics would provide negligible additional benefits. 

However, it may be possible to modify the midwifery training approach to prevention to increase cost-effectiveness. For example, up-skilling traditional birth workers to safely care for low-risk birthing women, including recognising and escalating common complications, could provide many of the benefits of fully-trained midwives at a lower cost and higher cultural acceptability. 

All that being said, while training midwives (or even traditional birth workers) to prevent OF may be only marginally more cost-effective than curative healthcare, the "side-effects" of this intervention are far more impressive. The primary benefit of training midwives in low HDI countries would not be OF prevention, but stillbirth and maternal and neonatal mortality reduction. According to Nove et al. (2021)

“Achieving a substantial scale-up of coverage of essential interventions that can be delivered by midwives who are educated, regulated to global standards, and working within an enabling environment by 2035 could avert 40% of maternal and neonatal deaths and 26% of stillbirths, relative to those projected to occur under current coverage. Achieving universal coverage could avert 65% of all these deaths.

Ethiopia, where CHFF is based currently has baseline rates of 0.267% maternal deaths (mat. D) and 4.18% early neonatal deaths (neonat. D) per live birth (LB) and 0.92% stillbirths (SB) per birth (B).

 

I'm sure there are many other complicating factors (or maybe my maths needs to be corrected?), but to me, that seems like a similarly, perhaps even more, surprising and exciting estimate than $20 to prevent obstetric fistula!

The WHO's article on midwifery education and care has some further information about the global health benefits of midwifery training which I haven't mentioned here but may be of interest.

I should also add that those calculations are based on a study on the impact of universal midwifery coverage compare to current coverage in low HDI countries, so they are assuming an ideal scenario where the midwife is able to attend every birth in her area, in addition to any ante- and postnatal care within the midwifery scope of practice. 

My estimate of 5000 births may be an optimistic one. A midwife in a busy city hospital may attend 1-3 births per shift, summing to >250 births per year, while a privately practicing midwife in a remote village m... (read more)

Curated and popular this week
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies
jackva
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
 [Edits on March 10th for clarity, two sub-sections added] Watching what is happening in the world -- with lots of renegotiation of institutional norms within Western democracies and a parallel fracturing of the post-WW2 institutional order -- I do think we, as a community, should more seriously question our priors on the relative value of surgical/targeted and broad system-level interventions. Speaking somewhat roughly, with EA as a movement coming of age in an era where democratic institutions and the rule-based international order were not fundamentally questioned, it seems easy to underestimate how much the world is currently changing and how much riskier a world of stronger institutional and democratic backsliding and weakened international norms might be. Of course, working on these issues might be intractable and possibly there's nothing highly effective for EAs to do on the margin given much attention to these issues from society at large. So, I am not here to confidently state we should be working on these issues more. But I do think in a situation of more downside risk with regards to broad system-level changes and significantly more fluidity, it seems at least worth rigorously asking whether we should shift more attention to work that is less surgical (working on specific risks) and more systemic (working on institutional quality, indirect risk factors, etc.). While there have been many posts along those lines over the past months and there are of course some EA organizations working on these issues, it stil appears like a niche focus in the community and none of the major EA and EA-adjacent orgs (including the one I work for, though I am writing this in a personal capacity) seem to have taken it up as a serious focus and I worry it might be due to baked-in assumptions about the relative value of such work that are outdated in a time where the importance of systemic work has changed in the face of greater threat and fluidity. When the world seems to
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr