Hi! Our current best estimate for long-term cost-effectiveness is 2600 dollars per life saved.
Multiple factors affect the cost-effectiveness trend, pushing in different directions.
We have started our work in the region we think we can have the largest impact – among other factors, this is affected by radio penetration, costs of operations (especially cost of air time), maternal and child mortality rates, and the severity of the information problem. As we scale up, the locations we can scale to become decreasingly impactful, and the change is rather large. E.i., we are going for the low-hanging fruits first.
On the other hand, there are some efficiency gains from working across many places at once – firstly, we can split fixed costs over more projects. Secondly, we benefit from learnings from other locations, which I believe will improve the quality of our material. Overall, we believe the cost of a life saved will drop over the next two years and become more expensive after that, ending at 2600 dollars per life saved in 2026. The falling and then increasing cost is the reason why the $7 million/3100 maternal deaths = $2,258 per life saved is lower than the 2600 dollars/ life saved estimate.
Our long-term estimates are, of course, estimates. By the end of this year, we aim to run three mini-campaigns in three new regions. This proof of concept project we teach us a lot about the barriers we will face when scaling, and will have an even better understanding of what it will cost to work across different regions then. We are committed to remaining transparent about how our estimates change when we learn more.
We are highly encouraged by the PMAdata results, which is a pre-post study. A 75% increase is tremendous over an 11-month-long period. Given the absence of new other actors with similar reach and intensity of programming and what we have heard from people on the ground, we think it is likely that a large part of this change was due to our work. This adds to an existing body of evidence finding radio campaigns to be impactful.
Still, we would like to validate our impact further by conducting an RCT – this is why we have developed a new technology that allows us to conduct randomized control trials of radio interventions. You can read more about the project here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HwGA4T0C0aciUK28ybYSYgbroB15x8cV6RQLNKHX1iA/edit
I would also like to emphasize that impact on agency – that women and men have access to high-quality information to make informed choices about their own lives – is not covered by this model and is substantial depending on your moral views.
In sum, I believe that an investment in FEM now is highly impactful, and I think there is significant room for growth while staying cost-effective.
Hi! Our content is varied and addresses a range of barriers, from pure misinformation (examples: fear that family planning can cause sterility, deformed babies, and harm to the womb) to “softer” barriers (examples: stigma and lack of spousal communication)
One of our most highly rated shows featured a prominent religious leader dispelling myths about the religious permissibility of using contraception. Testimonial shows where community members talk about their experience using contraception also do well, according to our research. We have also developed a serial drama where the listeners follow the stories of three families over eight weeks. Throughout the series, different characters experience different barriers and overcome them while learning more about their reproductive options. We also cover some other topics briefly in our serial drama, such as girl education and immunization.
In our last campaign, about 40% of content was targeted toward men, in the sense that we dispel myths that men primarily experience. Most of these ads and shows feature male characters and male role models.