A health intervention or a kitchen appliance? Household costs and benefits of a cleaner burning biomass-fuelled cookstove in Malawi

Datos Bibliográficos

ID4601546
AutoresKatie Cundale (0000-0001-6003-5617, Imperial College London), Ranjeeta Thomas (0000-0002-0947-4574, Imperial College London), Jullita Kenala Malava, Jullita Malava (Malawi Epidemiology and Intervention Research Unit), Deborah Havens (Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine), Kevin Mortimer (0000-0002-8118-8871, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine), Lesong Conteh (0000-0002-0719-3672, Imperial College London, autor de correspondencia)
Año2017
Volumen183
Páginas1-10
Fecha de publicación2017-06-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaSocial Science & Medicine (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0277-9536 • E-ISSN: 1873-5347
EditorialElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.04.017
PMID28441633
OpenAlexW2607386777
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas11
Referencias citadas36

Pneumonia is the leading cause of mortality for children under five years in sub-Saharan Africa. Household air pollution has been found to increase risk of pneumonia, especially due to exposure from dirty burning biomass fuels. It has been suggested that advanced stoves, which burn fuel more efficiently and reduce smoke emissions, may help to reduce household air pollution in poor, rural settings. This qualitative study aims to provide an insight into the household costs and perceived benefits from use of the stove in Malawi. It was conducted alongside The Cooking and Pneumonia Study (CAPS), the largest village cluster-level randomised controlled trial of an advanced combustion cookstove intervention to prevent pneumonia in children under five to date. In 2015, using 100 semi-structured interviews this study assessed household time use and perceptions of the stove from both control and intervention participants taking part in the CAPS trial in Chilumba. Household direct and indirect costs associated with the intervention were calculated. Users overwhelming liked using the stove. The main reported benefits were reduced cooking times and reduced fuel consumption. In most interviews, the health benefits were not initially identified as advantages of the stove, although when prompted, respondents stated that reduced smoke emissions contributed to a reduction in respiratory symptoms. The cost of the stove was much higher than most respondents said they would be willing to pay. The stoves were not primarily seen as health products. Perceptions of limited impact on health was subsequently supported by the CAPS trial data which showed no significant effect on pneumonia. While the findings are encouraging from the perspective of acceptability, without innovative financing mechanisms, general uptake and sustained use of the stove may not be possible in this setting. The findings also raise the question of whether the stoves should be marketed and championed as 'health interventions

Biofuel · Biomass fuels · Business · Consumption (sociology · Economics · Environmental health · Indoor air quality · Intervention (counseling · Smoke · Socioeconomics · Stove · Waste management · Child Nutrition and Water Access · Energy and Environment Impacts · Engineering · Environmental Science · Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems · Medicine · Nursing · Environmental Engineering