We find that, in low- and middle-income countries, RMNCH interventions were rarely evaluated using rigorous evaluation methods for economic consequences.
First, in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, nutrition interventions were rarely evaluated using appropriate evaluation methods for economic consequences, as evident by the small number of studies satisfying inclusion criteria.
Benefits are rarely evaluated, because they are difficult to quantify.
Suicide intervention policies are often multifaceted, expensive, and rarely evaluated.
However, information on timing errors in hydrologic predictions is rarely evaluated or provided.
Risk communication practices need to be effective to contribute to disaster reduction, but their impact is rarely evaluated.
Genetic and agronomic strategies to adapt climate changes were proposed in previous studies, but were rarely evaluated.
Alternative income-generating activities (IGAs) are widely implemented within conservation and development projects, but their impact is rarely evaluated.
However, zoning designations are rarely evaluated for their efficacy using empirical data related to both human and biodiversity characteristics.
Furthermore, whether the application of socioeconomic data in planning actually reduces avoidable negative impacts on stakeholders is rarely evaluated.
However, their ability to achieve no net loss is rarely evaluated, and factors leading to their success are mostly unknown.
