There was a thread on deworming on the Facebook group recently which people might be interested in reading or commenting on (here or there).
Matt Sharp had been reading through GiveWell’s material on this and was struck by the fact that the evidence for it seemed weak and limited, quoting this passage:
In our view, the most compelling case for deworming as a cost-effective intervention comes not from its subtle impacts on general health (which appear relatively minor and uncertain) nor from its potential reduction in severe symptoms of disease effects (which we believe to be rare), but from the possibility that deworming children has a subtle, lasting impact on their development, and thus on their ability to be productive and successful throughout life.
Empirical evidence on this matter is very limited, resting on two relatively well-known and well-executed studies.....The studies of the two trials we know of on this topic each have substantial limitations, and we do not consider them conclusive evidence for the presence (much less for the size) of these effects even in conditions similar to those in the trials. We do consider them suggestive evidence, enough to take the possibility of developmental effects seriously.
It’s definitely worth being aware that the evidence of effectiveness for deworming is less robust than that for bednets (which is part of why I favoured AMF—RFMF aside—in my post in the ‘Where I’m Giving And Why’ series). Joey Savoie pointed to this GiveWell blog post in support of the claim that it’s relatively well-evidenced though.
It’s also worth flagging that a new study of deworming was released this year. This was only the second RCT of deworming with long-term followup, and it had positive findings—so it substantially boosted the robustness of the evidence behind it.
There was a thread on deworming on the Facebook group recently which people might be interested in reading or commenting on (here or there).
Matt Sharp had been reading through GiveWell’s material on this and was struck by the fact that the evidence for it seemed weak and limited, quoting this passage:
It’s definitely worth being aware that the evidence of effectiveness for deworming is less robust than that for bednets (which is part of why I favoured AMF—RFMF aside—in my post in the ‘Where I’m Giving And Why’ series). Joey Savoie pointed to this GiveWell blog post in support of the claim that it’s relatively well-evidenced though.
It’s also worth flagging that a new study of deworming was released this year. This was only the second RCT of deworming with long-term followup, and it had positive findings—so it substantially boosted the robustness of the evidence behind it.
An update on what happened here Matt posted the question to Givewell and they responded http://blog.givewell.org/2014/10/03/a-promising-study-on-the-long-term-effects-of-deworming/comment-page-1/#comment-913365