Literature DB >> 35295194

Use, cost-effectiveness, and end user perspectives of a home solar lighting intervention in rural Uganda: a mixed methods, randomized controlled trial.

Radhika Sundararajan1,2, Helen D'Couto3, Joseph Mugerwa4, Mellon Tayebwa4, Nicholas Lam5, Eli Wallach5, Matthew Wiens6, Matthew Ponticiello2, Debbi Stanistreet7, Alexander C Tsai3,8, Jose Vallarino9, Joseph G Allen9, Daniel Muyanja4, Mark G Shrime7, Edwin Nuwagira4, Peggy S Lai3,8,9.   

Abstract

Energy poverty is prevalent in resource-limited settings, leading households to use inefficient fuels and appliances that contribute to household air pollution. Randomized controlled trials of household energy interventions in low and middle income countries have largely focused on cooking services. Less is known about the adoption and impact of clean lighting interventions. We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed methods study as part of a randomized controlled trial of home solar lighting systems in rural Uganda in order to identify contextual factors determining the use and impact of the solar lighting intervention. We used sensors to track usage, longitudinally assessed household lighting expenditures and health-related quality of life, and performed cost-effectiveness analyses. Qualitative interviews were conducted with all 80 trial participants and coded using reflexive thematic analysis. Uptake of the intervention solar lighting system was high with daily use averaging 8.23 ± 5.30 hours per day. The intervention solar lighting system increased the EQ5D index by 0.025 [95% CI 0.002 - 0.048] and led to an average monthly reduction in household lighting costs by -1.28 [-2.52, -0.85] US dollars, with higher savings in users of fuel-based lighting. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the solar lighting intervention was $2025.72 US dollars per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained making the intervention cost-effective when benchmarked against the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in Uganda. Thematic analysis of qualitative data from individual interviews showed that solar lighting was transformative and associated with numerous benefits that fit within a Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) framework. The benefits included improved household finances, improved educational performance of children, increased household safety, improved family and community cohesion, and improved perceived household health. Our findings suggest that household solar lighting interventions may be a cost-effective approach to improve health-related quality of life by addressing SDOH.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 35295194      PMCID: PMC8923618          DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac3f05

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Res Lett        ISSN: 1748-9326            Impact factor:   6.793


  25 in total

1.  Characterization of particulate matter size distributions and indoor concentrations from kerosene and diesel lamps.

Authors:  J Apple; R Vicente; A Yarberry; N Lohse; E Mills; A Jacobson; D Poppendieck
Journal:  Indoor Air       Date:  2010-07-16       Impact factor: 5.770

2.  Kerosene lighting contributes to household air pollution in rural Uganda.

Authors:  D Muyanja; J G Allen; J Vallarino; L Valeri; B Kakuhikire; D R Bangsberg; D C Christiani; A C Tsai; P S Lai
Journal:  Indoor Air       Date:  2017-04-10       Impact factor: 5.770

3.  Valuing Health State: An EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Ethiopians.

Authors:  Abraham G Welie; Gebremedhin Beedemariam Gebretekle; Elly Stolk; Clara Mukuria; Murray D Krahn; Fikre Enquoselassie; Teferi Gedif Fenta
Journal:  Value Health Reg Issues       Date:  2019-11-02

4.  Impact of improved cookstoves on women's and child health in low and middle income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Megha Thakur; Paulien A W Nuyts; Esther A Boudewijns; Javier Flores Kim; Timor Faber; Giridhara R Babu; Onno C P van Schayck; Jasper V Been
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2018-06-20       Impact factor: 9.139

5.  Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study.

Authors:  M F Janssen; A Simon Pickard; Dominik Golicki; Claire Gudex; Maciej Niewada; Luciana Scalone; Paul Swinburn; Jan Busschbach
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-11-25       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Qualitative thematic analysis based on descriptive phenomenology.

Authors:  Annelie J Sundler; Elisabeth Lindberg; Christina Nilsson; Lina Palmér
Journal:  Nurs Open       Date:  2019-04-07

7.  Design and Rationale of the HAPIN Study: A Multicountry Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Effect of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Stove and Continuous Fuel Distribution.

Authors:  Thomas Clasen; William Checkley; Jennifer L Peel; Kalpana Balakrishnan; John P McCracken; Ghislaine Rosa; Lisa M Thompson; Dana Boyd Barr; Maggie L Clark; Michael A Johnson; Lance A Waller; Lindsay M Jaacks; Kyle Steenland; J Jaime Miranda; Howard H Chang; Dong-Yun Kim; Eric D McCollum; Victor G Davila-Roman; Aris Papageorghiou; Joshua P Rosenthal
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2020-04-29       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Health, Well-Being and Energy Poverty in Europe: A Comparative Study of 32 European Countries.

Authors:  Harriet Thomson; Carolyn Snell; Stefan Bouzarovski
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 9.  How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods.

Authors:  Yosra Mouelhi; Elisabeth Jouve; Christel Castelli; Stéphanie Gentile
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2020-10-17       Impact factor: 202.731

View more
  1 in total

1.  Effect of a solar lighting intervention on fuel-based lighting use and exposure to household air pollution in rural Uganda: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Eli S Wallach; Nicholas L Lam; Edwin Nuwagira; Daniel Muyanja; Mellon Tayebwa; Linda Valeri; Alexander C Tsai; Jose Vallarino; Joseph G Allen; Peggy S Lai
Journal:  Indoor Air       Date:  2022-02       Impact factor: 6.554

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.