Two recent systematic reviews for development

Annette N. Brown, Deputy Director for AIES

TWO RECENT SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS FOR DEVELOPMENT International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org

Outline • • • • • •

Review questions Inclusion criteria Theory of change Search pipeline Results Fun methods finding

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org

“Interventions in Developing Nations for Improving Primary and Secondary School Enrollment of Children: A Systematic Review” By Anthony Petrosino, Claire Morgan, Trevor A. Fronius, Emily E. Tanner-Smith, Robert F. Boruch, November 2012

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org

Review questions • What are the effects of interventions implemented in developing countries on measures of students’ enrollment, attendance, graduation, and progression? • Within those studies that report the effects of an intervention on [the above measures], what are the ancillary effects on learning outcomes? International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org

Inclusion criteria Population/participants: Primary and secondary school aged children in LMICs Interventions: Intended to affect one of the four primary outcomes Comparison: No specific program comparison Outcomes: Enrollment, attendance, graduation, and progression Studies: RCTs and QEDs International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org

Typology of education interventions

Demand

Reducing costs

Providing information

CCTs, scholarships and non-fee subsidies

Supply

Increasing preparedness

Buildings

Early child development

Vouchers

Abolishing school fees and capitation grants

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

Health/ nutrition

Teachers

Materials

Management School feeding

www.3ieimpact.org

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org

“Farmer field schools for improving farming practices and farmer outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review” By Hugh Waddington, Birte Snilstveit, Jorge Hombrados, Martina Vojtkova, Daniel Phillips, and Howard White, December 2012

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org

Review questions • What is the impact of farmer field schools on their objectives in terms of ‘endpoint’ outcomes such as increased yields, net revenues and farmer empowerment, and intermediate outcomes such as capacity building and adoption of improved practices? • Under which circumstances and why: what are the facilitators and barriers to FFS effectiveness and sustainability? International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org

Inclusion criteria • Population/participants: Farm households in low and middle income countries • Intervention: Programs explicitly referred to as ‘farmer field school’ • Comparison: No specific program comparison • Outcomes: effectiveness across the causal chain – Knowledge → adoption → – Impact on yields, revenues, environment, health, empowerment

• Studies: – Effects: experimental, quasi-experimental with controlled comparison – Barriers/facilitators: qualitative (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist 2006) International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org

Input 1 Training of trainers

Input 2 Field school

T of Change

Capacity building (FFS participants)

Capacity building (FFS neighbours)

Adoption (FFS participants)

Adoption (FFS neighbours)

Measured impacts:

International Initiative for

Yield, input-output ratio, income, empowerment, environmental Impact Evaluation outcomes, health

www.3ieimpact.org

Input 1 Training of trainers

- Facilitators adequately trained - Farmers and facilitators attend sufficient meetings - FFS synchronised with planting season

- Curriculum relevant to problems facing farmers -Farmer attitudes changed (convinced message appropriate) - Relative advantage over old techniques Initiative International

Input 2 Field school

Capacity building (FFS participants)

Capacity building (neighbours)

Adoption (FFS participants)

Adoption (neighbours)

for

- Field days/follow-up - High degree of social cohesion - Geographical proximity to other farmers (observation) or market (communication)

- New technology appropriate - Market access Measured impacts: - Favorable prices Yield, input-output ratio, - Environmental factors income, empowerment, including weather, soil environmental fertility Impact Evaluation www.3ieimpact.org outcomes. health

Effectiveness

27,866 titles screened

1453 abstracts screened

Causal Chain Analysis 1,112 abstracts screened 751 excluded

126 no access

369 full text obtained

186 excluded: 128 on relevance 58 on design (no comparison)

183 Extension impact papers: 134 FFS 49 non-FFS

134 FFS impact papers

80 individual FFS studies

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

312 full text sought

49 no access

257 excluded

Qualitative Synthesis 25 qualitative papers

30 IE and sister papers

20 individual FFS studies

11 individual FFS studies

BB+ Synthesis

www.3ieimpact.org

Study ID

ES (95% CI)

FFS participants Huan et al., 1999 (Vietnam) Endalew, 2009 (Ethiopia) Price et al., 2001 (Philippines) Rao et al., 2012 (India) Reddy & Suryamani, 2005 (India) Kelemework, 2005 (Ethiopia) Mutandwa & Mpangwa, 2004 (Zimbabwe) Dinpanah et al., 2010 (Iran) Khan et al., 2007 (Pakistan) Bunyatta et al., 2006 (Kenya) Erbaugh, 2010 (Uganda) Rebaudo & Dangles, 2011 (Ecuador) Subtotal (I-squared = 93.3%, p = 0.000) . FFS neighbours Khan et al., 2007 (Pakistan) Reddy & Suryamani, 2005 (India) Ricker-Gilbert et al, 2008 (Bangladesh) Rebaudo & Dangles, 2011 (Ecuador) Subtotal (I-squared = 0.0%, p = 0.610) . NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis

0.02 (-0.06, 0.10) 0.27 (-0.06, 0.60) 0.42 (-0.17, 1.01) 0.43 (-0.02, 0.87) 0.45 (-0.04, 0.94) 0.54 (-0.22, 1.29) 0.59 (0.25, 0.92) 0.67 (0.41, 0.92) 0.79 (0.29, 1.29) 1.03 (0.65, 1.41) 1.14 (0.93, 1.34) 1.79 (1.17, 2.41) 0.66 (0.33, 1.00)

Positive impacts on knowledge among participants

-0.13 (-0.68, 0.42) 0.05 (-0.45, 0.56) 0.17 (-0.25, 0.59) 0.38 (-0.15, 0.91) 0.13 (-0.12, 0.37)

-.5

0

.5 1 Favours intervention

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

3

www.3ieimpact.org

Study ID

ES (95% CI)

FFS neighbours Pananurak, 2010 (India) Khan et al., 2007 (Pakistan) Feder et al, 2004 (Indonesia) Labarta, 2005 (Nicaragua) Pananurak, 2010 (China) Wu Lifeng, 2010 (China) Pananurak, 2010 (Pakistan) Yamazaki & Resosudarmo, 2007 (Indonesia) Subtotal (I-squared = 49.5%, p = 0.054) . FFS participants Pananurak, 2010 (India) Van Rijn, 2010 (Peru) Naik et al., 2008 (India) Huan et al., 1999 (Vietnam) Labarta, 2005 (Nicaragua) Rejesus et al, 2010 (Vietnam) Feder et al, 2004 (Indonesia) Wu Lifeng, 2010 (China) Ali & Sharif, 2011 (Pakistan) Pananurak, 2010 (China) Gockowski et al., 2010 (Ghana) Yang et al., 2005 (China) Hiller et al., 2009 (Kenya) Khan et al., 2007 (Pakistan) Cavatassi et al., 2011 (Ecuador) Davis et al, 2012 (Tanzania) Birthal et al., 2000 (India) Pananurak, 2010 (Pakistan) Dinpanah et al., 2010 (Iran) Wandji et al., 2007 (Cameroon) Mutandwa & Mpangwa, 2004 (Zimbabwe) Palis, 1998 (Philippines) Zuger 2004 (Peru) Carlberg et al., 2012 (Ghana) Yamazaki & Resosudarmo, 2007 (Indonesia) Van den Berg et al., 2002 (Sri Lanka) Davis et al, 2012 (Kenya) Pande et al., 2009 (Nepal) Dinpanah et al., 2010 (Iran) Orozco Cirilo et al., 2008 b) (Mexico) Todo & Takahashi, 2011 (Ethiopia) Subtotal (I-squared = 93.0%, p = 0.000) . NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis

0.79 (0.63, 1.00) 0.97 (0.74, 1.26) 0.99 (0.97, 1.01) 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) 1.02 (0.98, 1.07) 1.03 (0.99, 1.08) 1.03 (0.86, 1.25) 1.43 (1.05, 1.96) 1.01 (0.98, 1.03)

0.80 (0.61, 1.05) 0.86 (0.63, 1.18) 0.89 (0.83, 0.96) 0.95 (0.92, 0.98) 0.97 (0.92, 1.02) 0.97 (0.72, 1.31) 0.98 (0.96, 1.01) 1.08 (1.03, 1.14) 1.09 (1.03, 1.15) 1.09 (1.04, 1.14) 1.14 (1.03, 1.25) 1.15 (0.94, 1.41) 1.17 (0.53, 2.56) 1.17 (0.97, 1.42) 1.22 (0.97, 1.53) 1.23 (1.00, 1.51) 1.24 (1.13, 1.36) 1.24 (1.01, 1.54) 1.32 (1.22, 1.42) 1.32 (1.07, 1.63) 1.36 (1.06, 1.73) 1.36 (0.97, 1.92) 1.44 (1.09, 1.92) 1.58 (1.19, 2.10) 1.67 (1.23, 2.26) 1.68 (1.30, 2.18) 1.81 (1.15, 2.84) 2.11 (1.25, 3.56) 2.52 (2.05, 3.11) 2.62 (2.23, 3.08) 2.71 (1.11, 6.60) 1.23 (1.16, 1.32)

.5

1

2

Increased yields among FFSbeneficiaries not neighbours

3

Favours intervention International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org

Reduced environmental risk factors Study ID

ES (95% CI)

FFS participants Pananurak, 2010 (India)

0.52 (0.32, 0.85)

Praneetvatakul & Waibel, 2006 (Thailand)

0.54 (0.39, 0.76)

Pananurak, 2010 (Pakistan)

0.55 (0.41, 0.75)

Cavatassi et al., 2011 (Ecuador)

0.82 (0.55, 1.23)

Subtotal (I-squared = 8.0%, p = 0.353)

0.59 (0.49, 0.71)

. FFS neighbours Pananurak, 2010 (India)

0.58 (0.24, 1.41)

Pananurak, 2010 (Pakistan)

0.64 (0.37, 1.10)

Cavatassi et al., 2011 (Ecuador)

0.69 (0.43, 1.11)

Praneetvatakul & Waibel, 2006 (Thailand)

1.04 (0.32, 3.40)

Subtotal (I-squared = 0.0%, p = 0.878)

0.68 (0.49, 0.93)

. NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis

.1

.2

.5

1

2

Favours intervention

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org

Summary of quantitative findings • FFS increase knowledge and improve adoption of the FFS practices • On average increasing yields and/or incomes • Suggestions of farmers feeling empowered • Limited, if any, spillovers • Neighbours do not adopt the practices consistently International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org

Study ID

ES (95% CI)

High risk of bias Naik et al., 2008 (India) Huan et al., 1999 (Vietnam) Labarta, 2005 (Nicaragua) Gockowski et al., 2010 (Ghana) Yang et al., 2005 (China) Hiller et al., 2009 (Kenya) Khan et al., 2007 (Pakistan) Birthal et al., 2000 (India) Dinpanah et al., 2010 (Iran) Wandji et al., 2007 (Cameroon) Mutandwa & Mpangwa, 2004 (Zimbabwe) Palis, 1998 (Philippines) Zuger 2004 (Peru) Carlberg et al., 2012 (Ghana) Van den Berg et al., 2002 (Sri Lanka) Pande et al., 2009 (Nepal) Dinpanah et al., 2010 (Iran) Orozco Cirilo et al., 2008 b) (Mexico) Subtotal (I-squared = 95.4%, p = 0.000) . Medium risk of bias Pananurak, 2010 (India) Van Rijn, 2010 (Peru) Rejesus et al, 2010 (Vietnam) Feder et al, 2004 (Indonesia) Wu Lifeng, 2010 (China) Ali & Sharif, 2011 (Pakistan) Pananurak, 2010 (China) Cavatassi et al., 2011 (Ecuador) Davis et al, 2012 (Tanzania) Pananurak, 2010 (Pakistan) Yamazaki & Resosudarmo, 2007 (Indonesia) Davis et al, 2012 (Kenya) Todo & Takahashi, 2011 (Ethiopia) Subtotal (I-squared = 81.0%, p = 0.000) . Overall (I-squared = 93.0%, p = 0.000) NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis

0.89 (0.83, 0.96) 0.95 (0.92, 0.98) 0.97 (0.92, 1.02) 1.14 (1.03, 1.25) 1.15 (0.94, 1.41) 1.17 (0.53, 2.56) 1.17 (0.97, 1.42) 1.24 (1.13, 1.36) 1.32 (1.22, 1.42) 1.32 (1.07, 1.63) 1.36 (1.06, 1.73) 1.36 (0.97, 1.92) 1.44 (1.09, 1.92) 1.58 (1.19, 2.10) 1.68 (1.30, 2.18) 2.11 (1.25, 3.56) 2.52 (2.05, 3.11) 2.62 (2.23, 3.08) 1.35 (1.19, 1.52) 0.80 (0.61, 1.05) 0.86 (0.63, 1.18) 0.97 (0.72, 1.31) 0.98 (0.96, 1.01) 1.08 (1.03, 1.14) 1.09 (1.03, 1.15) 1.09 (1.04, 1.14) 1.22 (0.97, 1.53) 1.23 (1.00, 1.51) 1.24 (1.01, 1.54) 1.67 (1.23, 2.26) 1.81 (1.15, 2.84) 2.71 (1.11, 6.60) 1.10 (1.03, 1.17)

Sensitivity analysis: Yields by risk of bias status High risk of bias studies overestimate impacts

1.23 (1.16, 1.32)

.5

1

2 3 Favours intervention

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org

www.3ieimpact.org

THANK YOU!

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

www.3ieimpact.org