Cited by 14Energy and Environment ImpactsHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeImpact of Light on Environment and Health

Use, cost-effectiveness, and end user perspectives of a home solar lighting intervention in rural Uganda: a mixed methods, randomized controlled trial

Open access
Sundararajan, Radhika, D’Couto, Helen, Mugerwa, Joseph, Tayebwa, Mellon, Lam, Nicholas L, Wallach, Eli S, Wiens, Matthew O, Ponticiello, Matthew +8 more·2022·Environmental Research Letters

Abstract

Energy poverty is prevalent in resource-limited settings, leading households to use inefficient fuels and appliances that contribute to household air pollution. Randomized controlled trials of household energy interventions in low and middle income countries have largely focused on cooking services. Less is known about the adoption and impact of clean lighting interventions. We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed methods study as part of a randomized controlled trial of home solar lighting systems in rural Uganda in order to identify contextual factors determining the use and impact of the solar lighting intervention. We used sensors to track usage, longitudinally assessed household lighting expenditures and health-related quality of life, and performed cost-effectiveness analyses. Qualitative interviews were conducted with all 80 trial participants and coded using reflexive thematic analysis. Uptake of the intervention solar lighting system was high with daily use averaging 8.23 ± 5.30 h d−1. The intervention solar lighting system increased the EQ5D index by 0.025 (95% CI 0.002–0.048) and led to an average monthly change in household lighting costs by −1.28 (−2.52, −0.85) US dollars, with higher savings in users of fuel-based lighting. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the solar lighting intervention was $2025.72 US dollars per quality adjusted life year gained making the intervention cost-effective when benchmarked against the gross domestic product per capita in Uganda. Thematic analysis of qualitative data from individual interviews showed that solar lighting was transformative and associated with numerous benefits that fit within a social determinants of health (SDOH) framework. The benefits included improved household finances, improved educational performance of children, increased household safety, improved family and community cohesion, and improved perceived household health. Our findings suggest that household solar lighting interventions may be a cost-effective approach to improve health-related quality of life by addressing SDOH.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1748-9326/ac3f05

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Other studies support that transitioning to solar lighting can bring benefits beyond pollution exposure reduction, including household savings, more income-generating activity, gender empowerment, social inclusion, and improved education from more homework time.

    “Other studies have corroborated that the potential benefits of a transition to solar lighting extend well beyond reductions in pollution exposure to include savings on household expenditures, increase in income generating activities, gender empowerment, social inclusion, and improved education due to more time spent on homework12,13.”

    From Effect of a solar lighting intervention on fuel-based lighting use and exposure to household air pollution in rural Uganda: A randomized controlled trial (2022) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Results (Qualitative interviews; page not provided) report lower household lighting expenditures, more time for income-generating activities, improved community relationships, and educational gains linked to children being able to do homework after sunset. The study enrolled women, but the passages do not report gender empowerment as an outcome; that part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A separate publication from this trial estimated that, based on self-reported household lighting costs and assuming up-front payment, households switching from kerosene to solar lighting would recover their investment after 2.76 years.

    “In a separate publication from this trial, we have estimated that based on participant self-reported household lighting costs, assuming participants paid the up-front costs of the solar system used in this study, households converting from kerosene to solar lighting would recoup their investment after 2.76 years13.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [27]Devlin N,, Methods for Analysing and Reporting EQ-5D Data [Internet]. 2020: Springer. 33347096
  2. [31]Braun V,, Thematic Analysis, in Handbook of research methods in health social sciences, LP, Editor. 2019, Springer Nature: Singapore. p. 844– 58.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sundararajan, R., D’Couto, H., Mugerwa, J., Tayebwa, M., Lam, N. L., Wallach, E. S., Wiens, M. O., Ponticiello, M., Stanistreet, D., Tsai, A. C., Vallarino, J., Allen, J. G., Muyanja, D., Shrime, M. G., Nuwagira, E., & Lai, P. S.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • Mbarara University of Science and Technology (UG)
  • Cal Poly Humboldt (US)
  • Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (IE)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Lai, Peggy S
Venue
Environmental Research Letters
Published
2021-12-22
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
015002
ISSN
1748-9326 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3216666073
Cited by
14
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Research Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Harvard School of Public Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and Center for Environmental Health (P30ES000002)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Medicine Transformative Scholars Award
  • National Institutes of Health (K23 ES023700)
  • Friends of a Healthy Uganda
  • American Thoracic Society Unrestricted Grant
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Energy and Environment Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Impact of Light on Environment and Health
Keywords
energy poverty, household lighting, clean energy adoption, cost-effectiveness, health-related quality of life, social determinants of health, household air pollution, rural households, Uganda, home safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review