Table 4.

Results of the simple ‘what-if?’ simulations of the effects of changing case definitions on programme caseload and workload

	Case definition	Population	Prevalence (%)*	Coverage (%)†	Caseload*	Intensity weight*,†	Workload*,‡
A	All MUAC < 115 mm§	17 000	0·6, 1·3, 2·5	32·4, 41·6, 52·0	33, 92, 221	1·00	33, 92, 221
B	MUAC ≥ 115 mm & MUAC < 125 mm‖		3·4, 5·5, 8·8	32·4, 41·6, 52·0	187, 389, 778	0·24, 0·56, 1·32	45, 218, 1027
C	MUAC ≥ 115 mm and WAZ < −3¶		2·8, 5·0, 8·1	12·5, 21·8, 26·8	60, 185, 369	0·21, 0·43, 0·89	13, 80, 328

MUAC, mid-upper arm circumference; CMAM, community-based management of acute malnutrition; WAZ, weight-for-age Z-score.

^*Parameter values and results are presented as fuzzy triangular numbers.

^†Calculated by dividing the observed pooled risk ratio for each component of the selected case definition by the observed pooled risk ratio for the common CMAM case definition (A).

^‡Caseload adjusted (i.e. multiplied) by intensity weight.

^§This is a common admission criterion for CMAM programmes.

^‖Additional cases for combined (e.g. ComPAS) programmes above the common CMAM admission criteria of MUAC < 115 mm for children of all ages.

^¶Additional cases for programmes adding WAZ < −3 to the common CMAM admission criteria of MUAC < 115 mm for children of all ages.