Intervention Reports - August 2017 Version
We have published a more recent version of this page. See our most recent version of this page.
Last updated: August 2017
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, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bednet distribution | 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 |
| Deworming | Yes | Report | Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness |
| Immunization to prevent maternal and neonatal tetanus | Yes | Report | Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness |
| Salt iodization | 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 |
| Oral Rehydration Solution | Yes, but at a shallow level | Report | Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness |
| Sayana® Press | Yes, but at shallow level | Report | Probably has reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness |
| Seasonal malaria chemoprevention | Yes, but at shallow level | Report | Reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness |
| SMS reminders for immunization | Yes, but at a shallow level | Report | Limited 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 |
| Breastfeeding promotion | No | Probably has reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness | |
| Oral rehydration therapy | No | Probably has reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness | |
| Pneumonia treatment | No | Probably has reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness | |
| Polio eradication | No | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Distribution of eyeglasses in developing countries | Yes | Report | Evidence is less compelling |
| Immunization to prevent meningitis A | Yes | Report | Lack of room for more funding |
| Integrated community case management | 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 |
| Severe acute malnutrition | Yes | Report | Limited evidence of effectiveness |
| 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 |
| Condom promotion and distribution | Yes, but not up-to-date | Report | Evidence is less compelling |
| Education | Yes, but not up-to-date | Report | Evidence is less compelling |
| 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 |
| Antibiotics for treating child malnutrition | No | Not enough known to make an informed guess | |
| Contraception distribution | No | Not enough known to make an informed guess | |
| Iron supplementation/fortification | No | Not enough known to make an informed guess | |
| Multiple micronutrient supplementation | No | Not enough known to make an informed guess | |
| Surgery | No | Probably reasonably strong evidence of effectiveness but difficult to scale | |
| Treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis | No | 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.