Blog

Stay up to date with Giving What We Can's blog. Featuring the latest news about our community, how to donate effectively, charity evaluation, community events and more!

Giving What We Can's blog, featuring the latest news from our community.

Donate

Pledge

footerNavigation

About us

Contact us

Our team

Our values

Our members

Our events

Transparency

Our mistakes

Our impact

Donate to Giving What We Can

Careers

About

Our best charities

Take a giving pledge

Get involved

Make a bequest

Videos, books, podcasts

FAQs

Sitemap

Learn more

Press kit

Media coverage

Case studies: People who pledge to give

Media

Footer Navigation

DONATE

topNavigation

Best charities

High-impact causes

Why give to funds

How much to donate

Why donate publicly

Recommendations

Our research & approach

Comparing charities

Evaluating evaluators

Our approach

Giving guides

Videos, books, podcasts and essays

Hesitations about charitable giving

How rich am I?

Can money buy happiness?

Resources

Research

Team

The 🔸10% Pledge

🔹Trial Pledge

Company Pledge

Further Pledge

Bequests

Why pledge

Pledges

Newsletter

Podcast

Videos

Connect with our community

Sharing our ideas

Events

Giving games

Charity elections

Pledge drive

Fundraisers

Community

Donate now

Manage my donations

Tax deductibility

Australian page

My pledge

My donations

My income

My impact

Top Navigation

Coralie Oddy

Becoming an Effective Altruist

As a young teenager, I remember giving away all my Christmas money after the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami. I understood that I didn’t actually need that money, and there were other people who needed it desperately. As I grew older, I began to realise that this desperate need doesn’t go away just because the news cameras have moved on, or is only present in the wake of a disaster. Extreme poverty is an everyday fact of life for thousands of people, a fact not deemed newsworthy only because of its constant, ongoing nature.

Perhaps because of this, by and large we accept poverty as an insurmountable problem. Sometimes we raise funds or donate money, but most of the time it is something we’d rather forget about, powerless to do much about it. We worry about government corruption and charities working ineffectively. In a way, I think this helps relieve us of a sense of responsibility – if there’s nothing we can do, we needn’t do anything.

Throughout my studies, I continued to try my best to make a difference. I attended protests and did sponsored runs in fancy dress. I baked cakes, rattled tins and raised thousands of pounds organising charity gigs for local bands. All this was deeply rewarding and definitely enriched my life, boosting my CV and my wellbeing.

It was fun. I chose my charities because I liked the sound of their work. I organised events now and again, when a cause or idea took my fancy. I hoped for the best, but I also doubted myself. Was this really making a difference? Was it really helping? I didn’t want to ever stop caring, but neither did I want to be a hopeless idealist.

Faced with a huge problem and no idea how to solve it, we either end up apathetic or cynical, or try our best without much impact. But here’s the thing – 

while poverty remains a huge problem, we are getting better and better at finding the best ways to solve it.

Through much googling and steering by likeminded friends, I found Effective Altruism. Suddenly my hopes and doubts weren’t fighting against one another, but working together. By critically examining how charities spent their money, I could choose to give to only the most effective.

Our evidence about the best methods for tackling poverty is constantly growing. While the News doesn’t dwell on everyday extreme poverty, nor does it focus on our gradual successes in fighting it. You perhaps wouldn’t know it, but 

over the last twenty years, the number of people living in extreme poverty 

So I decided that I needed to give to the most effective charities – you can find these via 

, and the detailed evidence for why they are the most effective from 

. I also decided I needed to give consistently, and hold myself accountable for doing what I’d always wanted – 

to make a difference, and to continue to make a difference throughout my life.

After a period of underemployment, I now have a full time job. I don’t earn a lot (I’m working as a teaching assistant), but I earn more than enough to get by, and enough after that to give away to the people who aren’t able to say that yet. After giving away 10% of my salary, I’m still earning more than 99% of people in the world (you can see where you fit in with Giving What We Can’s 

Now I know I am making a difference – most people could do the same.

Hauke Hillebrandt

An update on the effectiveness of Deworm the World Initiative (DtWI)

The Deworm the World Initiative (DtWI) has been one of our highly recommended charities for several years now.

Our colleagues at Givewell have published an 

 recently that was generally very favourable, and they continue to rank among Givewell’s top charities. You can read more about the general case for deworming on 

In this blog post, we will give you an update about their efforts that we feel complements Givewell’s report. You can find more general information about DtWI on our 

. In our opinion, DtWI continues to be a very promising charity and could be one the most effective charities in the world.

Recent Scientific findings that relate to DtWI’s effectiveness

New findings on whether deworming improves health and cognition

DtWI has traditionally focused on deworming programs in India, where soil-transmitted intestinal worms (soil-transmitted intestinal helminths (STH)) are very common and there is almost no schistosomiasis, which is generally considered to be more harmful. The main STH parasitic worms that infect people are the roundworm (Ascaris lumbricoides), the whipworm (Trichuris trichiura) and hookworms (Necator americanus and Ancylostoma duodenale).

 However, recently DtWI has expanded their deworming program into Africa, namely Kenya and Ethiopia, where schistosomiasis is common and where they help with combination deworming programs against STH and schistosomiasis (we have previously reported on how location matters for deworming [insert link to Eliz post]). Moreover, DtWI is currently thinking about expanding into other African countries such as Nigeria, Namibia or South Africa.

 Hence we will focus our review mainly on new research findings on the effects of only treating STH and refer to our previous update on the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative for new findings relating to combination deworming programs treating STH and schistosomiasis [insert link].

Effects of deworming for treating soil-transmitted intestinal worms on health

A recent Cochrane review summarized studies looking at the effects of deworming drugs for treating soil‐transmitted intestinal worms on nutrition and school performance

. They suggest that deworming may increase the weight of children by over half a kilo and increase haemoglobin levels. It is possible that cognition is improved, but this is based on a few low-quality trials, and Givewell argues that they should have included another trial. Crucially, all of the evidence comes from small trials studying children known to be infected with worms (by screening). In contrast, without prior screening they conclude that it is unclear whether mass deworming of STH is has an effect on weight, height, school attendance, or school performance; and that it may have little or no effect on haemoglobin or cognition. This study has been criticized by Poverty Action

 and a rebuttal of that criticism has also been published

. We generally believe with this rebuttal and that the inferences drawn in the Cochrane review are generally valid.

Moreover, a recent analysis of DEVTA, a large scale cluster-randomized trial from 1999-2004 with 1 million lightly infected Indian children from rural areas

, found weight, height, and haemoglobin were not significantly improved by mass deworming. They furthermore found that in this lightly infected population reduction in mortality could be anywhere from no reduction to 10% reduction in mortality (the overall mortality was 2·52% and 2·65% in the treatment and the control group respectively). It could however be more likely that deworming affects mortality in other, more heavily infected, populations. This trial also had a potential confounder: some children with obvious worms in the control group received treatment

. We believe this is a minor confounder and does not jeopardize the main conclusion drawn from this trial.

However, generally, there is agreement, even among the authors of the Cochrane review and the large DEVTA trial that did not find strong evidence for health benefits on mass deworming 

 that children who were screened for worms and test positive should be dewormed and that, in principle, deworming drugs for STHs have good, reasonably strong effects on health, which is in line with our biological understanding of the parasitic worms. So the question is: if there is consensus that the deworming works in principle, then why don't we see reasonably strong effects of mass deworming in the Cochrane meta-analyses on mass deworming and the very large DEVTA trial? There are some sensible explanations:

The large DEVTA trial, which was conducted between 1999 and 2004, was confounded (see above) and/or conducted suboptimally, since it did not include integrated measures to reduce infection such as hygiene promotion (which is now considered to be best practice for deworming interventions), or it did not deworm frequently enough.

The true effect size of mass deworming on populations with all kinds of infection intensities and prevalence is underestimated because the samples studied had relatively low worm burden.

The trial was not adequately powered to pick up a relatively small effect size on health measures (in fact, the large trial was no better powered than several previous studies to pick up effects on health indicators, but only highly powered to pick up effects on mortality

Crucially, screening followed by treatment of those children testing positive for worms is far less practical and more costly than mass treatment of infected and uninfected children without diagnostic testing

. In the light of this cost-benefit analysis for screening versus mass treatment, the case for mass deworming is still strong, but one might suggest that it is better to focus more on more heavily infected populations and improve trials. Because DtWI provides technical assistance and evaluation of whether an area should be dewormed based among other whether the local worm burden is sufficiently high, they have probably improved the effectiveness of mass deworming programmes in the more recent past.

Effects of deworming for treating soil-transmitted intestinal worms on cognition

A recent reanalysis of data from a cluster randomised trial compared the literary and numeracy test scores of children 7-8 years after mass deworming for STH to the scores of a control population which had not undergone mass deworming during this time period

. The author found improved test scores in those treated with deworming, and concluded that this strengthens the evidence for cognitive benefits for mass deworming in areas of high worm prevalence. Even though this analysis is not perfect (

), we do believe that the analysis is valid and we support its conclusion.

 looked at deworming spillovers during early childhood and suggests that there are improvements in cognitive performance equivalent to between 0.5 and 0.8 years of schooling. However, this paper looked at combination deworming. Givewell conducted a reanalysis of this data looking at the effects of STH by excluding all the schools that received praziquantel against schistosomiasis. They find that not all but many of the results still hold

, which means that DtWI’s case of only deworming for STHs in India is still strong with regards to improvement of school performance.

Does deworming against STH increase malaria intensity or prevalence?

about how mass drug administration against Schistosomiasis might help reduce Malaria

. However, with STHs the case is very different. Researchers have long been aware of the fact that worms significantly impact malaria

. Increasingly, STH - Malaria co-infections have been the focus of investigation and some scientists have become worried that certain STHs actually 

 malaria. There are several reasons to believe that 

 STHs actually protect people from malaria and thus there is a worry that deworming might make people more susceptible to malaria. There are several reasons for why one could assume this. The default condition of the mammalian ancestral immune system was to be parasitized by gastrointestinal worms (schistosomiasis is not a gastrointestinal worm)

. Malaria is one the strongest known selective force on the human genome

. Based on our knowledge about the human immune system, it is plausible to assume that malaria and helminths interact

. There are at least 20 studies that examine interactions between malaria and worms in humans (for a recent review, see 

One recent review concludes that that some worms, notably Ascaris, are associated with protection from severe complications of malaria and that others, notably hookworm, lead to increased malaria incidence or prevalence

. Other factors might include the worm infection intensity, as well as age

 (age is potentially a very relevant factor for DtWI, which mostly deworms school age children, who are also more vulnerable to malaria, but the literature does not currently have a consensus on this topic

 has even suggested that mass drug administration should administer both ivermectin, an antimalarial drug, and albendazole, which is used for deworming, in order to maximize effects against STHs and malaria.

To what extent is the interaction between Malaria and very specific worms relevant to DtWI? In the past, DtWI has primarily operated in India and has only recently expanded to Africa (Kenya). Treatment against schistosomiasis with praziquantel has been suggested to decrease the incidence of malaria

. However, in India, schistosomiasis is not present but STHs such as Ascaris and hookworm are. In some of the Indian states that DtWI operates in, Ascaris (which has been hypothesized to decrease malaria susceptibility) is more prevalent and intense than hookworm (which has been hypothesized to increase malaria susceptibility)

. Moreover, about 95% of Indians reside in areas where malaria is endemic

. Thus, there is a case to be made that deworming could increase the malaria burden, but due to the complex interactions between worm-load, the kind of worms, prevalences, and reduction, it is unclear whether t DtWI STH deworming has increased or decreased malaria incidences, severity and morbidity. Further research is needed to address this question.

“Although it is tempting to rush to the conclusion that deworming patients would reduce malaria [due to Hookworm and schistosomiasis], it still seems wise to be attentive to the potential scenario of an increase of severe malaria [due to protective effects of Ascaris]. Monitoring the incidence of malaria and severe malaria before and after vertical de-worming campaigns seems a minimum test to make sure there is a better understanding of what is going on at a population level”.

“The risk that entire populations may have an increased susceptibility to Plasmodium should invite study regarding the possible epidemiological relevance of helminth infections and the impact of controlling them on malaria incidence. The presence of helminth infections could represent a much more important challenge for public health than previously recognized.”

This is interesting in the light of the large scale DEVTA trial with 1 million school children mentioned above

, which did not provide significant evidence of an effect of deworming on survival (mortality RR 0·95, 95% CI 0·89–1·02), which could be due to increased malaria incidences. The confidence interval (0·89–1·02) of this trial does not exclude a mortality reduction of about 10%, but it also does not exclude a very slight increase of mortality. One can also not rule out that positive (e.g. hookworm related) and negative (e.g. Ascaris related) malaria interactions have cancelled out. More research is needed to address this complex issue. 

 A recent randomized trial suggests that deworming with albendazole does not increase malaria incidence among children 

Independent of whether deworming does indeed increases malaria, the topic of this disease interaction was superficially treated in a recent paper

, which has a DtWI Director as the first author. The paper merely states that deworming may also strengthen the immunological response to other infections, such as malaria, whereas the extant literature suggests that the opposite could also be true (see above). Especially in the light of the fact that DtWI is currently seeking additional funds mostly for research, this omission has decreased our confidence in DtWI.

Is Givewell’s concern that they are deworming twice annually justified?

In their most recent report Givewell has been concerned that some of the deworming DtWI has initiated is redundant, because India runs an existing program to treat lymphatic filariasis (LF) where the same drug used to treat STH is sometimes used to treat LF, 

. In at least one case, both ran a deworming round within two months. Of course, deworming programmes would ideally be coordinated so as to optimally spread it over the year. However, increasing the number of deworming rounds is probably beneficial and in the following section we present several studies that show that more frequent deworming may be beneficial.

A recent review showed that in endemic areas where the prevalence of STH infections is above 10%, reinfections occur rapidly after treatment (see 

), particularly for Ascaris and whipworm and biannual treatment might be indicated against Ascaris and whipworm and at least one treatment per year against hookworm

**: Summary of the rapidity of re-acquiring soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infections after treatment**

**Notes:**6 months posttreatment, the prevalence of all three worm infections reached or exceeded half the initial level; and at 12 months posttreatment follow-up, the prevalence of 

 usually returned to levels close to the initial pretreatment, while levels of hookworm reinfection continued to fluctuate at about half pretreatment level. Figure taken from

Another recent study showed similarly rapid re-infection with after 97% of people were cured of Ascaris, the prevalence 6 months post-treatment was back to 83.8%

. And a further recent trial found that in a community where STH are highly endemic, an extremely intensive anthelmintic treatment, which was 3 monthly albendazole administration for 21 months over two years, is safe and leads to a reduction in STH

The authors of the review cited above suggest that more intense treatment is likely to further impact on morbidity, but might bear the risk of drug resistance development.

Drug resistance seems to a be a more general concern as it is of yet uncertain whether the reports on reduced efficacy in hookworms represent genuine cases of genetic resistance or whether they simply reflect reduced drug efficacy

Finally, there is the question of whether multiple treatments per year are not only effective, but also 

 We cannot currently say much about this with complete certainty. One could imagine a case where the the first of a yearly treatment causes a higher reduction in worm load than the second and thus one should do deworming annually. However, our best guess is that multiple treatments are cost-effective. This is because reinfection is often rapid and so treatment after only 3 months seems to have benefits that are not substantially less effective at driving down infection prevalence as treatment after 1 year. The cost for DtWI for executing their deworming programmes seem to be to a large degree upfront costs to get the program running, and we think the marginal cost of having a deworming program more frequently per year vs. just annually is probably low. In sum, we believe that several treatments per year are both effective and cost-effective and DtWI might investigate this possibility further.

DtWI estimates that total cost per child dewormed is about $0.30-$0.40 depending on the country, which is very cost-effective. However, DtWI does not currently execute deworming campaigns directly, but advocates mass deworming and assists local governments to undertake deworming interventions.

 that DtWI has room for $1.3 million of additional funding to support its activities in 2015 and 2016. At a recent meeting Givewell has stated that they hope that they can receive roughly $750,000 in 2014 from Givewell donations

, leaving a funding gap of a relatively small amount of $550,000. In Givewell’s most recent Room for more funding estimations

, they state that December 2014 to March 2015 DtWI has received an additional $660,000 through Givewell.

However, Givewell also states that unrestricted funds have and will continue to allow DtWI to be more strategic in its scale-up.

 that there is much more room for funding for deworming organisation such as SCI. DtWI is in a similar position to SCI, in that it could use a lot more resources to scale up its operations and leverage its already existing expertise in order to help tackle the big problem of parasitic infections.

As the number of people who are targeted to receive deworming rises (see 

), DtWI could probably scale up and strengthen its efforts in the countries they currently operate in and expand to new countries. A recent report by the World Health organisation estimates that the overall costs for all kinds of preventive chemotherapy in the coming year are in the hundreds of millions (see 

 for a split between the costs of Schistosomiasis and STH). As DtWI now also operates in Kenya, the calculations made for SCI (insert link to SCI report) could also apply to DtWI’s operations in Africa. For their continuing work in India, a lower-middle income country, the following calculations already take into account that India completely covers the cost of distributing the donated medicines using their own resources and thus only needs technical assistance and nudging to implement deworming programs.

 on NTDs highlights the importance of not neglecting lower-middle countries such a India:

“Until relatively recently, the highest number of people affected by NTDs lived in low income countries. As their economies grew, some were classified as middle-income countries. However, the health and welfare benefits of economic growth have not reached everyone. [...] most (about 65%) of the people requiring treatment for NTDs live in middle-income countries. Indeed, it is even the case that most of the people requiring but not receiving treatment for NTDs are in middle-income countries. 

 shows that the gap between the number of people requiring preventive chemotherapy and the number of people receiving preventive chemotherapy is largest for those middle-income countries – specifically lower-middle-income countries [such as India].”

Thus, it is very much conceivable that DtWI, with their unique expertise in India, might play a substantial part implementing such future deworming programs and thus require substantially more funds. This could be subject to change if bigger agencies such as USAID recognize the cost-effectiveness of interventions targeting NTDs.

: Number of people targeted for coverage with integrated preventive chemotherapy, selected NTDs (from recent WHO report

Note that the upper graph’s x-axis starts 25 Million.

Figure notes: school-age children; STH, soil-transmitted helminthiases.

Notes: The dots indicate the number of people treated in 2012; the solid lines are targets not forecasts. Targets assume integrated delivery of preventive chemotherapy for LF and onchocerciasis in Africa, schistosomiasis and STH among school-age children, and LF and STH outside Africa. Pending further evidence, they do not yet assume further integration of LF and onchocerciasis in Africa with schistosomiasis and STH.

 Figure showing the overall projected costs of all preventive chemotherapy (i.e. mass drug administration against NTDs including schistosomiasis and soil transmitted helminths) in the coming years. This excludes medicine prices, which are donated by the pharmaceutical companies. Figure adapted from (Fig. 2.4 Investment targets for universal coverage against NTDs from recent WHO report

 Figure showing the projected costs of preventive chemotherapy against schistosomiasis (upper panel) and soil transmitted helminths (lower panel) in the coming years. This excludes medicine prices, which are donated by the pharmaceutical companies. Figure adapted from a recent WHO report

: Shaded areas reflect the range determined by low and high values of the unit cost benchmarks; they do not reflect uncertainty about future rates of scale-up and scale-down of interventions. The dots in 2012 are actual numbers reported (when available) multiplied by the unit cost benchmarks, which is the approximate cost of delivering one treatment; these are not actual expenditures, but can be thought of as a benchmark for actual expenditures. All numbers expressed in US$ are constant (real) US$, adjusted to reflect purchasing power in the United States of America in 2015.

 World Bank classifies India as a lower-middle income country (more than US$ 1045 but less than US$ 4125 GNI per capita), while Kenya is a low income country (of US$ 1045 or less). The middle-income group includes both lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries. Income groups are held constant across the period of analysis. The dark solid line is the number of preventive chemotherapy treatments required for populations at risk of infection and the light dotted line is the number of treatments delivered. The distance between those lines is the coverage gap. The period 2013–2015 (light solid line) is based on an assumption of linear scale-up from actual coverage reported in 2012 towards 2020 targets; these are targets, not forecasts.

“The commitment of foreign donors and community volunteers to NTD control will continue to be important in scaling up access to those products that are available. However, it is unlikely that they can mobilize resources at the scale implied by universal coverage against NTDs. Universal coverage against NTDs will fail if it fails to mobilize domestic investment.”

The case for funding scientific evaluation

DtWI plans to spend $230,000 on staff to support evaluation of DtWI’s work in Kenya. Givewell reports

 that this work is primarily funded by CIFF. However, Givewell sees room for more funding:

“DtWI believes that additional resources can improved significantly the quality of the analysis done regarding the cost effectiveness of breaking transmission. One idea that DtWI has investigated is the possibility of distributing bednets along with deworming pills in schools as an alternative distribution mechanism to national net distributions. Another is including hand-washing educational programming alongside deworming days.”

As schistosomiasis related illness is more severe, we believe it is possible for DtWI to expand out into schistosomiasis endemic African countries such as Kenya. This might have a better cost effectiveness than programmes in STHs endemic countries such as India. We also commend the intent to execute and study more comprehensive interventions that treat multiple diseases, as it is generally acknowledged among researchers that WASH (Water, Sanitation, Hygiene) interventions play an integral part to prevent rapid reinfection

DtWI is planning to spend a large part of their budget - $500,000 of 1.3 million - on evaluation of new evidence-based programs that improve deworming operations

. We are not entirely clear of exactly what of programs DtWI are trying to study, but given its good track-record in research, we think that this is laudable. Moreover, it might be important to study STHs because they are particularly understudied: 

 plots the scientific engagement with a particular disease against the overall burden of a disease

 can easily be interpreted: a disease such as HIV might have a high overall disease burden, but also be focus of intensive scientific investigation, and thus it will be plotted above the line. Diseases that are very close to or on the line, receive scientific attention commensurate to their disease burden. Other diseases, however, which fall under the line, arguably receive too little scientific attention relative to their disease burden and deserve further attention from the scientific community. This measure is of course only a proxy for the degree of scientific engagement and has weaknesses (see discussion of

), however, citations are generally considered to be a good measure of engagement with a certain research area. All STHs that DtWI treats in India are very far under the line (marked in yellow and circled in red) and so are probably understudied. Thus, investment in the study of such disease might be a low hanging fruit with high returns on investment.

Figure 7: Relationship between burden of disease in log10-transformed Disability-adjusted-life-years (DALYs) and H-index scores. Figure adapted from:

DtWI has been very successful at receiving funding from governmental and 

. In 2014, CIFF, a major foundation that had supported DtWI's programs in Kenya, agreed to a 6-year, $17.7 million grant to support DtWI's expansion to additional states in India and technical assistance to the Government of India for a national deworming program

Blog

Becoming an Effective Altruist

An update on the effectiveness of Deworm the World Initiative (DtWI)

Announcing the Giving What We Can Global Poverty Essay Competition ($2000 in prize money): ‘Where should we donate to do the most good?’

Effective Altruism means Effective Inclusion

SCI in Madagascar

Why averting a DALY through deworming may be better than through malaria nets

Peter Singer's The Most Good You Can Do

Why financial education matters for smarter giving

How Religion Motivates My Giving

The Best Public Health Interventions of the 20th Century