This spreadsheet for internal use within SoGive. It has not been vetted for use outside of SoGive

GiveWell: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16XOOB1oWse1ICbF0OVXUYtwWwpvG3mxAAQ6LYAAndQU/edit#gid=1377543212

Additional Sources

Internal validity: published studies are more likely to overstate an intervention's efficacy than understate it (95%). External validity: proportion of mortality attributed to malaria in AMF program regions compared to RCTs (131%), incecticide resistance (82%), general external validity adjustment (95%)

Five studies are used for negative spillover effects of cash transfers on inflation (95% adjustment). One study, Haushofer and Shapiro 2013, a variant of GiveDirectly's program, is used to model the proportion of cash transfers that is invested.

Internal validity: little evidence on short-term benefits of mass deworming. External validity: difference in worm burdens in current deworming regions compared to Busia experiment (~10%) and difference in the number of treatment years (90%).

Internal validity: published studies are more likely to overstate an intervention's efficacy than understate it. External validity: default (100%)

Internal validity: uncertainty about regression model choice. External validity: differences in vitamin A deficiency prevalence and causes of mortality in Helen Keller's program regions compared to past RCTs.

External validity: lower vaccine efficacy in Nigeria.

Source for New Incentives

Internal validity: sceptical prior. External validity: effects of partial vaccinations not accounted for in New Incentives RCT results.

Internal validity: higher than deworming because there have been 6 RCTs (but <100% because there are some potential limitations of the studies). External validity: studies of iodine benefits took place in areas of moderate deficiency, charity is likely to work in countries which have mild or no iodine deficiency.

Source for salt iodization

Internal validity: Lanphear et al. (2013), an observational study, does not have a large sample size, so it seems quite possible that a replicated study could produce different results. However, unlike deworming, there is evidence of a biological mechanism for cognitive effects of lead exposure. External validity: Lanphear et al. (2013) is a global study, but mostly includes high-income countries, which could justify applying an adjustment. However, it is not clear whether lead exposure would have a more or less significant effect on IQ in LMICs.

Source for lead exposure intervention report

Internal validity: We primarily use the US studies from this meta-analysis, but apply adjustments based on evidence from LMICs outlined in our lead paint regulation intervention report. External validity: This is 100% since we incorporate evidence from LMICs into our adjustments for internal validity.

Source for lead exposure intervention report