ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
Endline metrics
2
3
Note: This CEA uses numbers from a previous model (for a postpartum family planning intervention at-scale, covering 80% of facilities in Ghana) as inputs, and attempts to quantify the effects in a number of areas based on that baseline. This model can easily be adapted to other family planning programs by adjusting the numbers at the top of the "Calculations" sheet, as well as adapting the numbers to the relevant country/region. All figures are either for sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) or Ghana and are noted in each instance. Many of the studies consulted are available in this spreadsheet; for more information, just ask!
4
5
AreaMetricOutcome
6
7
Health$ per DALY averted$165
8
9
AgencyCost per woman provided counselling$2.20
10
Cost per unintended birth averted$91
11
12
This model includes the health and agency effects of family planning on mothers and children. However, it does not include several forms of effects worth
modeling. If these effects were modelled, we anticipate that family planning would appear moderately to significantly more promising. Such effects include the following:

- Child heath effects that are non-fatal. Short birth spacing and large family size are associated with negative health effects such as wasting, stunting, and low birth weight (e.g. Rutstein p. S15).
- "Human capital" effects on children, such as lower IQ and educational attainment. The literature is less extensive but still fairly suggestive on this point.
- Income effects for mothers and families. Only a handful of studies have been sufficiently long-term to model the income effects of family planning. Such studies, such as the Navrongo experiments in Ghana and
the Matlab study in Bangladesh, have typically shown sizable income benefits. These benefits are modeled in the CE FP CEAs.
- Demographic dividend effects. Falling birth rates have been associated with overall economic benefits in a number of instances. Most prominently, the Copenhagen Consensus has modeled these effects.
However, we have uncertainties about the generalizability of this data.
- Environmental benefits due to smaller population size have been modelled by other organisations, including in the CE FP CEAs.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100