Worm Intensity

	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. 6-8
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14	Uganda	4%	10	1	24	3		1%	3%	15%	6%	0%			Unpublished studies shared with GiveWell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	38%	1477	6	133	0		52%	5%	42%	0%		68%	68%	DtWl Bihar 2011 Prevalence Survey Report, p. 4
19	Rajasthan	18%	311	0	1	0		20%	0%	1%	0%		21%	21%	DtWI Rajasthan 2013 Prevalence Survey Report, p. 6
20	Madhya Pradesh	14%	0	0	6	0		0%	0%	12%	0%		12%	12%	DtWI Madhya Pradesh 2015 Program Report, p. 37
21	Kenya	19%	1653	33	64	12		18%	7%	16%	2%				Mwandawiro et al. 2013
22	Uttar Pradesh	6%	6889	3	17	0		70%	5%	23%	0%		76%	76%	DtWI Uttar Pradesh Prevalence Survey Report, p. 20
23	Delhi	3%	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	Weighted average — Deworm the World		1554	9	65	2		33%	4%	23%	0%		48%	47%
26	Sightsavers
27	Nigeria	88%									21%			19%	Sightsavers prevalence and intensity summary workbook
28	DRC	6%									47%			9%	Sightsavers prevalence and intensity summary workbook
29	Guinea-Bissau	6%									4%			64%	Sightsavers prevalence and intensity summary workbook
30	Weighted average — Sightsavers										21%			20%
31	Worm burden compared to Miguel and Kremer 2004
32	SCI		10%	11%	3%	18%		11%	4%	9%	38%
33	Deworm the World		66%	6%	15%	3%		80%	7%	29%	2%		52%	53%
34	Sightsavers										97%			23%
35	Intensity normalized to moderate intensity threshold
36	Moderate Intensity threshold (EPG)		5000	400	750	250									Miguel and Kremer 2004, Pg 168, Table 2.
37	Miguel and Kremer		47%	40%	57%	36%
38	SCI		5%	5%	2%	7%
39	Deworm the World		31%	2%	9%	1%
40	Sightsavers
41	Quadratic polynomial parameters (Lo et al. 2016)
42	P1		13910	671	2491	156
43	P2		4432	-49	-656	219
44	P3		75	57	96	35
45	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.
46	Lo et al. 2016
47	Lo et al. 2016—Supplementary Appendix
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
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