Experimental Design
The study will be an RCT in 140 secondary schools in rural areas of the Amoron’I Mania region in Madagascar. The schools will be randomly assigned to one of 4 treatment arms:
1. Control (35 schools)
2. Infrastructure only (35 schools) – only construction of latrines and handwashing basins
3. Sensitization interventions + free sanitary pads (35 schools) – only Young Girl Leaders, teacher sensitization, school-based hygiene competition, and free distribution of menstrual pads. 2-6 girls are nominated in each school to be Young Girl Leaders.
4. The full package (35 schools) – combine all interventions from (2) and (3).
Hypotheses being tested:
• Effect of infrastructure. Understanding the impacts of the infrastructure by comparing arms with and without infrastructure is crucial for evaluating the overall cost-effectiveness of the program, since it is expected to contribute to about 60% of the overall cost. Measuring the psychosocial wellbeing effects of physical infrastructure is also crucial. Our qualitative work has indicated that in this setting, with very high rates of poverty and little state presence, having salient interventions in schools (visits from officials or construction of visible infrastructure) could have important effects on motivation and other psychosocial factors driving education, even if they do not target these outcomes directly.
• Effect of sensitization + sanitary pad interventions. Conversely, since the rest of the bundle of interventions is substantially cheaper to implement, finding that it is sufficient to generate learning effects could imply that it is very cost effective, competitive with the most cost-effective interventions described by a Global Advisory panel on education interventions (GEEAP 2023).
• Complementarity between infrastructure and other interventions. There may be important complementarities between the two types of interventions: for example, girls may only be able to change their hygiene behaviour and begin handwashing if they have access to handwashing basins at school. The 4th arm thus enables us to test this complementarity.
Data collection:
• Baseline (pre-intervention, October 2024), midline (after 1 year of intervention), and endline (after 2 years of intervention)
• Girls’ survey (17 girls per school) using surveys at the household of the 2,380 teenage girls and their mothers; teacher and director survey (maximum 3 per school); school-level survey.
In midline and endline, we also add approximately 4-5 girls per school to the sample who were potential nominees to be Young Girl Leaders (both in treatment and control schools, regardless of whether they were eventually trained), in order to measure causal effects on YGLs themselves.
BIOMARKER OUTCOMES:
Biomarker outcomes will be collected at endline in a nested subsample of approximately 80 schools spanning all four randomized treatment arms. The sample will include up to approximately 17 girls per school, with a planned maximum of approximately 1,360 girls. The biomarker sample will be selected before biomarker assay results and treatment-effect analysis. School selection reflects the operational accessibility and cold-chain requirements of biomarker collection while preserving coverage and balance across treatment arms. Within selected schools, the target is up to 17 girls from the original study sample. Up to three Young Girl Leaders will be prioritized where available.
We will estimate intent-to-treat effects according to each school's original randomized assignment. The main specification will regress each biomarker outcome on indicators for the infrastructure-only, sensitization-plus-free-pads, and combined-treatment arms, with control schools as the omitted category. We will also report the p-values pooled factorial comparisons of infrastructure versus no infrastructure and sensitization versus no sensitization, together with tests comparing the treatment arms.
Regressions will include randomization-stratum fixed effects and baseline-grade fixed effects. We will use post-double-selection LASSO to select additional controls from prespecified pre-treatment covariates (Belloni, Chernozhukov, and Hansen, 2014). The selection procedure will take the union of variables that predict the outcome and randomized treatment assignment, while always including randomization strata and baseline grade into the model. An exact baseline measure of the outcome will also be included when one exists (although no baseline salivary cortisol or CRP measure was collected). Standard errors will be clustered at the school level.
The set of prespecified pre-treatment covariates for the post-double-selection LASSO was fixed prior to endline data collection and outcome unblinding. As a robustness check, we will additionally report an unadjusted specification, without LASSO-selected controls, to demonstrate that results are not sensitive to the covariate-selection procedure.
Reference
Belloni, A., Chernozhukov, V., & Hansen, C. (2014). Inference on treatment effects after selection among high-dimensional controls. The Review of Economic Studies, 81(2), 608–650. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdt044