2017 Worm Intensity Workbook — Version 2

	A	B	D	E	F	G	H	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	R
1	Program		Eggs per gram					Prevalence rate
2		Program Weight	Ascaris	Whipworm	Hookworm	Schistosomiasis mansoni	Schistosomiasis haematobium (eggs/10mL)	Ascaris	Whipworm	Hookworm	Schistosomiasis mansoni	Schistosomiasis haematobium	Any infection	Any STH	Sources

3	Miguel and Kremer 2004
4	Group 1 schools — 1998 pre-treatment		2337	161	426	91		42%	55%	77%	22%		92%	89%	Miguel and Kremer 2004, Pg 168, Table 2.
5	SCI														Source Key
6	Ethiopia	18%	185	8	10	9	0	10%	4%	5%	4%	0%			Ethiopia, Impact Survey – Baseline 2015/16, p. 6
7	Malawi	13%	0	0	0	2	4	0%	0%	0%	2%	10%		0%	Malawi 2nd Follow-Up Survey report, p. 11
8	Mozambique	13%	2	7	9	1	29	6%	4%	11%	3%	26%			SCI 2016 report to DFID, p. 10 & Fiona Fleming, emails to GiveWell, November 2 2016 and November 7 2016
9	DRC	11%	1259	96	2	59	5				32%	3%		25%	Democratic Republic of Congo Baseline Impact Survey 2015, p. 4 & SCI 2016 report to DFID, p. 9
10	Madagascar	4%	116	1	2	14	62	3%	1%	1%	5%	31%			Madagascar Baseline Impact Survey 2015, p. 6
11	Tanzania	6%	0	0	46	29	2	0%	0%	10%	2%	10%			SCI 2016 report to DFID, p. 10 & Fiona Fleming, email to GiveWell, November 2, 2016
12	Cote d'Ivoire	5%	108	15	44	34	6	2%	1%	13%	16%	10%			Fiona Fleming, email to GiveWell, November 7, 2016
13	Zambia	2%	83	14	28	6	14	3%	0%	11%	2%	10%			Zambia ICOSA Baseline Report, p. 11
14	Uganda	4%	10	1	24	3		1%	3%	15%	6%	0%			Unpublished studies shared with GiveWell
15	Liberia	1%	4	0	5	16	42	13%	1%	15%	26%	20%			SCI report to DFID (October 2013), Annex 1, p. 26
16	Weighted average — SCI		237	18	13	16	11	5%	2%	7%	8%	10%
17	Deworm the World
18	Bihar	25%	1477	6	133	0		52%	5%	42%	0%		68%	68%	DtWl Bihar 2011 Prevalence Survey Report, p. 4
19	Rajasthan	10%	311	0	1	0		20%	0%	1%	0%		21%	21%	DtWI Rajasthan 2013 Prevalence Survey Report, p. 6
20	Madhya Pradesh	8%	0	0	6	0		0%	0%	12%	0%		12%	12%	DtWI Madhya Pradesh 2015 Program Report, p. 37
21	Kenya	10%	1653	33	64	12		18%	7%	16%	2%				Mwandawiro et al. 2013
22	Uttar Pradesh	8%	6889	3	17	0		70%	5%	23%	0%		76%	76%	DtWI Uttar Pradesh Prevalence Survey Report, p. 20
23	Delhi	0%	90	3	1	0		12%	6%	1%	0%		16%	16%	DtWI Delhi 2012 Prevalence Survey Report, p. 3
24	Chhattisgarh	3%	7102	0	6	0		70%	0%	11%	0%		75%	75%	DtWI Chhattisgarh Prevalence Survey Report, p. 17
25	Pakistan	13%	578	68	2	0		18%	9%	6%	0%				GiveWell's unpublished analysis of baseline prevalence in areas Deworm the World plans to work in Pakistan
26	Nigeria	23%	635	3	4	1		27%	5%	7%	3%	3%			GiveWell's unpublished analysis of baseline prevalence in areas Deworm the World may work in Nigeria
27	Weighted average — Deworm the World		1565	15	43	2		33%	5%	18%	1%		53%	52%
28	Sightsavers
29	Guinea	3%	89	8	20	98		12%	14%	24%	52%	52%			Sightsavers prevalence workbook (All countries)
30	DRC	6%	69	5	4	1		10%	8%	7%	2%	2%
31	Nigeria	90%	6	0	10	0		3%	0%	17%	0%	17%
32	Weighted average — Sightsavers		13	1	10	4		4%	1%	17%	2%	17%
33	The END Fund
34	Zimbabwe	7%	5	0	2	4		3%	0%	3%	7%	20%			Unpublished END Fund prevalence workbook (All countries)
35	DRC	16%	323	4	14	3		21%	7%	20%	7%	3%
36	Nigeria	16%	626	5	57	0		27%	9%	34%	1%	2%
37	Ethiopia	28%	66	2	3	2		10%	4%	5%	4%	0%
38	Weighted average of anonymized locations	33%	902	2	5	3		31%	3%	9%	6%	16%
39	Weighted average — The END Fund		466	3	14	2		21%	5%	13%	5%	8%
40	Worm burden compared to Miguel and Kremer 2004
41	SCI		10%	11%	3%	18%		11%	4%	9%	38%
42	Deworm the World		67%	9%	10%	2%		79%	8%	23%	5%		57%	59%
43	Sightsavers		1%	0%	2%	4%		9%	2%	22%	10%
44	END Fund		20%	2%	3%	2%		50%	9%	17%	21%
45	Intensity normalized to moderate intensity threshold
46	Moderate Intensity threshold (EPG)		5000	400	750	250									Miguel and Kremer 2004, Pg 168, Table 2.
47	Miguel and Kremer		47%	40%	57%	36%
48	SCI		5%	5%	2%	7%
49	Deworm the World		31%	4%	6%	1%
50	Sightsavers		0%	0%	1%	1%
51	END Fund		9%	1%	2%	1%
52	Quadratic polynomial parameters (Lo et al. 2016)
53	P1		13910	671	2491	156
54	P2		4432	-49	-656	219
55	P3		75	57	96	35
56	Values marked in yellow are intensity estimates calculated based on the model presented in Lo et al. 2016. The model allows estimation of worm intensity in terms of eggs per gram when only prevalence information is available.
57	Lo et al. 2016
58	Lo et al. 2016—Supplementary Appendix
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100