Intervention Reports - March 2021 Version

We have published a more recent version of this page. See our most recent version of this page.

Last updated: March 2021

This page lists interventions we have researched to identify candidates for our list of top charities. Our priority programs have the following characteristics:

  • The evidence for their effectiveness appears to have relatively high external validity and thus generalizability: it is relatively clear which components of the program are important for effectiveness, and thus we expect a higher-than-usual chance of being able to meaningfully assess a charity's impact when it focuses on these programs.
  • They appear to be potentially highly cost-effective.

Table of Contents

Below we list the programs we have considered as potential priority programs.

For older versions of this page, see the 2009 version, the 2012 version, the August 2017 version, and our summary of our 2009-2011 criteria for evaluating programs.

Priority Programs

Program Has GiveWell completed an evidence review? GiveWell report GiveWell's current conclusion
Bridges to Prosperity Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Cash transfers Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Cataract surgery Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Community-based intervention packages to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Deworming Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
HPV vaccination to prevent cervical cancer Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Immunization to prevent maternal and neonatal tetanus Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Iron fortification Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Iron supplementation for school-age children Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Kangaroo mother care Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Mass distribution of azithromycin to reduce child mortality Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Mass distribution of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
New Incentives (conditional cash transfers to increase infant vaccination) Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Probiotic supplementation for preterm newborns Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Salt iodization Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Seasonal malaria chemoprevention Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Supplementary immunization activities to prevent measles Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Surgery to repair obstetric fistula Yes Report Some evidence of effectiveness; promising
Vitamin A supplementation Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Voluntary medical male circumcision to curb HIV and cervical cancer Yes Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Antiretroviral therapy to treat HIV/AIDS Yes, but at a shallow level Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Alive & Thrive (intensive breastfeeding promotion) Yes, but at a shallow level Report Some evidence of effectiveness; promising
Breastfeeding promotion Yes, but at a shallow level Report Some evidence of effectiveness; promising
Community-based management of acute malnutrition Yes, but at a shallow level Report Some evidence of effectiveness; promising
Community salt substitution for reducing cardiovascular risk Yes, but at a shallow level Report Some evidence of effectiveness; promising
Eyeglasses to improve workers' manual dexterity Yes, but at a shallow level Report Some evidence of effectiveness; promising
Intermittent preventive treatment in infants (IPTi) for malaria Yes, but at a shallow level Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Oral Rehydration Solution Yes, but at a shallow level Report Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Precision Agriculture for Development (mobile-based agricultural advice) Yes, but at a shallow level Report Some evidence of effectiveness; promising
Sayana® Press Yes, but at a shallow level Report Probably has reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
SMS reminders for immunization Yes, but at a shallow level Report Limited evidence of effectiveness; promising
Syphilis screening and treatment during pregnancy Yes, but at a shallow level Report Some evidence of effectiveness; promising
Immunizations Yes, but not up-to-date Report Probably has reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Malaria treatment Yes, but not up-to-date Report Probably has reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Mass administration of ivermectin and albendazole to control lymphatic filariasis Yes, but not up-to-date Report Review update underway
Mass administration of ivermectin to control onchocerciasis Yes, but not up-to-date Report Probably has reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV Yes, but not up-to-date Report Probably has reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Therapeutic zinc supplementation Yes, but not up-to-date Report Probably has reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Trachoma control Yes, but not up-to-date Report Probably has reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness
Tuberculosis case finding and first-line treatment Yes, but not up-to-date Report Probably has reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness

Other Programs We've Investigated

Program Has GiveWell completed an evidence review? GiveWell report GiveWell's current conclusion
Clean cookstoves Yes Report Limited evidence of effectiveness to date
Conditional subsidies for seasonal labor migration in northern Bangladesh Yes Report Mixed evidence; research ongoing
Condom promotion and distribution Yes Report Limited evidence of effectiveness
Distribution of eyeglasses in developing countries Yes Report Evidence is less compelling
Early childhood psychosocial stimulation Yes Report Evidence is less compelling
Education in developing countries Yes Report Limited evidence of effectiveness to date
Immunization to prevent meningitis A Yes Report Lack of room for more funding
Integrated community case management Yes Report Limited evidence of effectiveness
Intermittent preventive treatment of malaria during pregnancy Yes Report Limited evidence of effectiveness
Mass media to promote behavior change Yes Report Limited evidence of effectiveness to date
Non-therapeutic zinc supplementation/fortification Yes Report Evidence is less compelling
Soft skills certification Yes Report Evidence is less compelling
Water quality (filtration, chlorination) Yes Report Evidence is less compelling
Interventions to promote handwashing Yes, but at a shallow level Report Evidence is less compelling
Oral Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV Yes, but at a shallow level Report Limited evidence of cost-effectiveness
Maternal mortality reduction Yes, but not up-to-date Report Evidence is less compelling
Microfinance Yes, but not up-to-date Report Limited evidence of effectiveness
Water infrastructure Yes, but not up-to-date Report Evidence is less compelling

How We Identified Programs for Investigation

We first started working on identifying promising programs for investigation in 2009. At that time, we focused on reviewing two sources:

  • The Copenhagen Consensus, the only case we have seen of an independent panel of experts attempting to identify the most promising philanthropic investments (discussed more here)
  • Millions Saved, the best collection we have found of large-scale, well-documented past successes in international aid (discussed more here)

If a program was both featured in one of these two publications and similar to a program focused on by one or more of the charities we reviewed, we generally conducted further investigation into the program. Details on which programs are featured in these two publications, which similar programs are focused on by the charities we've reviewed, and which programs we investigated are available here (XLS).

Over time, we have added programs to this list; we have added any program that seems to potentially fit the criteria laid out at the top of the page. We place more emphasis than we previously did on external validity, and less on estimated cost-effectiveness, for reasons laid out in a 2012 blog post.

We previously listed our best guesses about the evidence for interventions we had not completed reviews of; we no longer think this provides useful information and have removed these lines from this page.


Source URL: https://www.givewell.org/research/intervention-reports/March-2021-version