IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0258488.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness of mandatory folic acid fortification of flours in prevention of neural tube defects: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Viviane Belini Rodrigues
  • Everton Nunes da Silva
  • Maria Leonor Pacheco Santos

Abstract

Background: Neural tube defects (NTDs) constitute the most frequent group among congenital malformations and are the main cause of neonatal morbimortality. Folic acid (FA) can reduce the risk of pregnancies affected by NTDs. Objective: We aimed to investigate whether mandatory folic acid (FA) fortification of flours is cost-effective as compared to non-mandatory fortification, and to verify whether FA dosage, cost composition, and the quality of economic studies influence the cost-effectiveness of outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic review. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD 42018115682). A search was conducted using the electronic databases MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and EBSCO/CINAHL between January 2019 and October 2020 and updated in February 2021. Eligible studies comprised original economic analyses of mandatory FA fortification of wheat and corn flours (maize flours) compared to strategies of non-mandatory fortification in flours and/or use of FA supplements for NTD prevention. The Drummond verification list was used for quality analysis. Results: A total of 7,859 studies were identified, of which 13 were selected. Most (77%; n = 10) studies originated from high-income countries, while three (23%) were from upper-middle-income countries. Results of a cost-effectiveness analysis showed that fortification is cost-effective for NTD prevention, except for in one study in New Zealand. The cost-benefit analysis yielded a median ratio of 17.5:1 (0.98:1 to 417.1:1), meaning that for each monetary unit spent in the program, there would be a return of 17.5 monetary units. Even in the most unfavorable case of mandatory fortification, the investment in the program would virtually payoff at a ratio of 1:0.98. All FA dosages were cost-effective and offered positive health gains, except in one study. The outcomes of two studies showed that FA dosages above 300 μg/100 g have a higher CBA ratio. The studies with the inclusion of “loss of consumer choice” in the analysis may alter the fortification cost-efficacy ratio. Conclusion: We expect the findings to be useful for public agencies in different countries in decision-making on the implementation and/or continuity of FA fortification as a public policy in NTD prevention.

Suggested Citation

  • Viviane Belini Rodrigues & Everton Nunes da Silva & Maria Leonor Pacheco Santos, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of mandatory folic acid fortification of flours in prevention of neural tube defects: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-16, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0258488
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258488
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258488
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258488&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0258488?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fanzo, Jessica & McLaren, Rebecca & Bellows, Alexandra & Carducci, Bianca, 2023. "Challenges and opportunities for increasing the effectiveness of food reformulation and fortification to improve dietary and nutrition outcomes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0258488. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.