Jodlowski 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: PCS How were missing data handled? 8 HHs that were missing in some of the survey rounds were excluded in the analyses. The authors stated that they found little evidence to suggest that attrition was systematic or influenced their results. No data provided. Randomisation ratio: N/A Recruitment method: formation of local community groups, followed by submitting an application to Heifer International's Zambia offices for participation in the livestock assistance programme. Sample size justification and outcome used: NR Sampling method: unclear. The authors stated: "The selection of original beneficiaries among the eligible households is known to have been random in 1 community, and is assumed to have been random in other communities where the process was not observed." Study aim or objective: to use unique panel data from the rollout of a Heifer International livestock programme in Zambia to identify the causal effect of livestock ownership on dietary diversity and consumption expenditure. Study period: January 2012 to August 2013 Unit of allocation or exposure: HHs
Participants	Baseline characteristics Intervention or exposure group (livestock receipt and training programme): Age: head of HH, mean, years: 50.8 (SD 12.5) Place of residence: HHs, n: Kamisenga 31; Kaunga 20; Kanyenda 54 Sex: female headed HHs, %: 27.6 Ethnicity and language: NR Occupation: NR Education: education of head, mean: 2.46 (SD 0.12) SES: HH size, mean: 7.165 (SD 2.474); cultivated land area, mean, hectares: 4.675 (SD 6.577); HH expenditure, mean, per capita per week: USD 6.56 (4.83); livestock revenue, last 3 months, %: 0.3% Social capital: NR Nutritional status: HDDS, mean: 5.86 (SD 1.848); HH expenditure on food, %: 55.2 (SD 17.5) Concomitant or previous care: NR Morbidities: NR Control (Prospectives and Pass‐on‐the‐Gift (POG) group – no livestock receipt) Age: head of HH, mean, years: 43.99 (SD 13.509) Place of residence: HHs, n: Kamisenga 42; Kaunga 20; Kanyenda 54 Sex: female headed HHs, %: 28.1 Ethnicity and language: NR Occupation: NR Education: education of head, mean: 2.55 (SD 0.091) SES: HH size, mean: 6.842 (SD 2.842); cultivated land area, mean, hectares: 3 (SD 3); HH expenditure, mean, per capita per week: USD 7.64 (SD 5.43); livestock revenue, last 3 months, %: 2.8 Social capital: NR Nutritional status: HDDS, mean: 5.747 (SD 1.774); HH expenditure on food, mean %: 56 (SD 17.9) Concomitant or previous care: NR Morbidities: NR Overall: NR Inclusion criteria: poor HHs from 5 rural communities in Zambia (Kamisenga, Kaunga, Kanyenda, Chembe and Mwanaombe) who were eligible to receive livestock from the Heifer International programme. These HHs were required to participate in training activities and agree to make initial investments in animal facilities at their homes, as well as payments into a community insurance fund. Exclusion criteria: non‐poor HHs in these communities or those not willing to partake in the livestock programme Pretreatment: participants in the POG group were significantly different from those in the originals group with respect to age of head, and amount of land cultivated. Participants in POG group were significantly different from those in the independent group with respect to education of head, weekly expenditure per capita; value of HH and farm assets; amount of cultivated land. Attrition per relevant group: intervention group (original group) 2/105; control group (POG): 8/111; control group (prospective group): 1/67 Description of subgroups measured and reported: types of livestock received by intervention HHs. Dairy cattle (Kamisenga): 73; graft cattle (Kaunga): 40; goat (Kanyenda): 103 Total number completed and analysed per relevant group: intervention group (original group) 103; control group (POG group) 103; prospective group 66 Total number enrolled per relevant group: intervention group (original group) 105; control group (POG group) 111; prospective group 67 Total number randomised per relevant group: N/A
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Intervention or exposure group: Food access intervention category: increase buying power Intervention type: income generation Description: HHs received livestock in an initial distribution (original group); ongoing training activities. One‐off transfer of livestock contingent on training participation: 1. a pregnant dairy cow and bull, 2. 2 draft cattle and a bull, or 3. 7 female and 1 male meat‐type goats. 1 female offspring per transferred female had to be donated to a POG HH. Duration of intervention period: 18 months (January–February 2012 to July–August 2013) Frequency: single transfer of livestock, ongoing training activities Number of study contacts: 4 (January–February 2012; July–August 2012; January–February 2013 and July–August 2013) Providers: Heifer International Delivery: livestock delivered at study initiation Co‐interventions: NR Resource requirements: 31 dairy cows, 40 draft cattle and 2 bulls, and 432 goats Economic indicators: cost of livestock: about USD 2000 Control (POG) group – no livestock receipt Food access intervention category: increase buying power Intervention type: none Description: prospective and POG HHs received female offspring from initially donated livestock to intervention group, but after the end of study. POG HHs may or may not have received livestock during the study period: if they did, they received immature livestock that did not yield income within the period of study. POGs may benefit from increased availability of livestock products consumption in their communities. Duration of intervention period: 18 months (January–February 2012 to July–August 2013) Frequency: single transfer of livestock to POG HHs, ongoing training activities Number of study contacts: 4 (January–February 2012; July–August 2012; January–February 2013 and July–August 2013) Providers: Heifer International Delivery: may have received female offspring of initially donated livestock Co‐interventions: NR Resource requirements: N/A Economic indicators: N/A
Outcomes	Per capita total weekly expenditures on food and non‐food items Dietary diversity: HDDI, probability weighted DDS
Identification	Sponsorship source: Elanco Animal Health (USA) and Heifer International Country: Zambia Setting: rural communities in Coppervelt Province of Zambia Author's name: Margaret Jodlowski Email: mcj47@cornell.edu Declarations of interest: no Study or programme name and acronym: Copperbelt Rural Livelihoods Enhancement Support Project (CRLESP) Type of record: journal article
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (Selection bias)	High risk	CBA study; therefore, randomisation was not done.
Allocation concealment (Selection bias)	High risk	CBA study and no randomisation was done.
Baseline characteristics similar (Selection bias)	Low risk	The study authors reported a marginally larger mean cultivated land area in the intervention group. However, they stated that 1 HH largely drove this difference and that when this outlier was removed, the difference disappeared (data not shown).
Baseline outcome measurements similar (Selection bias)	Low risk	HH DDSs were similar in intervention and control groups at baseline. Regression analyses reported no significant differences in terms of baseline dietary diversity or consumption between HHs receiving different types of livestock, compared to control HHs.
Blinding of participants and personnel (Performance bias)	Low risk	Participants and personnel were aware of the livestock intervention but this was unlikely to have influenced their behaviour.
Blinding of outcome assessment (Detection bias)	High risk	No blinding and for DDS outcome: (quote) "Food groups are recalled by the family member responsible for food preparation and recorded on the survey instrument." Self‐reported data could have been influenced by lack of blinding.
Protection against contamination (Performance bias)	High risk	Authors assessed spillover effects to HHs in the control group (POGs) but that were in the same community as the intervention HHs, and found no statistically significant difference in outcomes except for milk consumption, which also increased in POG HHs although not to the same extent as in intervention HHs.
Incomplete outcome data (Attrition bias)	Low risk	Overall attrition was low (3.8%; 11/283).
Selective outcome reporting (Reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Outcomes reported were in line with those specified in the methods but no protocol available.
Other bias	Low risk	None identified