Cargando…
Prioritizing the scale-up of interventions for malaria control and elimination
BACKGROUND: A core set of intervention and treatment options are recommended by the World Health Organization for use against falciparum malaria. These are treatment, long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets, indoor residual spraying, and chemoprevention options. Both domestic and foreign aid fundi...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6454681/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30961603 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-019-2755-5 |
_version_ | 1783409587354861568 |
---|---|
author | Winskill, Peter Walker, Patrick G. Cibulskis, Richard E. Ghani, Azra C. |
author_facet | Winskill, Peter Walker, Patrick G. Cibulskis, Richard E. Ghani, Azra C. |
author_sort | Winskill, Peter |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: A core set of intervention and treatment options are recommended by the World Health Organization for use against falciparum malaria. These are treatment, long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets, indoor residual spraying, and chemoprevention options. Both domestic and foreign aid funding for these tools is limited. When faced with budget restrictions, the introduction and scale-up of intervention and treatment options must be prioritized. METHODS: Estimates of the cost and impact of different interventions were combined with a mathematical model of malaria transmission to estimate the most cost-effective prioritization of interventions. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was used to select between scaling coverage of current interventions or the introduction of an additional intervention tool. RESULTS: Prevention, in the form of vector control, is highly cost effective and scale-up is prioritized in all scenarios. Prevention reduces malaria burden and therefore allows treatment to be implemented in a more cost-effective manner by reducing the strain on the health system. The chemoprevention measures (seasonal malaria chemoprevention and intermittent preventive treatment in infants) are additional tools that, provided sufficient funding, are implemented alongside treatment scale-up. Future tools, such as RTS,S vaccine, have impact in areas of higher transmission but were introduced later than core interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In a programme that is budget restricted, it is essential that investment in available tools be effectively prioritized to maximize impact for a given investment. The cornerstones of malaria control: vector control and treatment, remain vital, but questions of when to scale and when to introduce other interventions must be rigorously assessed. This quantitative analysis considers the scale-up or core interventions to inform decision making in this area. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12936-019-2755-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6454681 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64546812019-04-19 Prioritizing the scale-up of interventions for malaria control and elimination Winskill, Peter Walker, Patrick G. Cibulskis, Richard E. Ghani, Azra C. Malar J Research BACKGROUND: A core set of intervention and treatment options are recommended by the World Health Organization for use against falciparum malaria. These are treatment, long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets, indoor residual spraying, and chemoprevention options. Both domestic and foreign aid funding for these tools is limited. When faced with budget restrictions, the introduction and scale-up of intervention and treatment options must be prioritized. METHODS: Estimates of the cost and impact of different interventions were combined with a mathematical model of malaria transmission to estimate the most cost-effective prioritization of interventions. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was used to select between scaling coverage of current interventions or the introduction of an additional intervention tool. RESULTS: Prevention, in the form of vector control, is highly cost effective and scale-up is prioritized in all scenarios. Prevention reduces malaria burden and therefore allows treatment to be implemented in a more cost-effective manner by reducing the strain on the health system. The chemoprevention measures (seasonal malaria chemoprevention and intermittent preventive treatment in infants) are additional tools that, provided sufficient funding, are implemented alongside treatment scale-up. Future tools, such as RTS,S vaccine, have impact in areas of higher transmission but were introduced later than core interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In a programme that is budget restricted, it is essential that investment in available tools be effectively prioritized to maximize impact for a given investment. The cornerstones of malaria control: vector control and treatment, remain vital, but questions of when to scale and when to introduce other interventions must be rigorously assessed. This quantitative analysis considers the scale-up or core interventions to inform decision making in this area. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12936-019-2755-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6454681/ /pubmed/30961603 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-019-2755-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Winskill, Peter Walker, Patrick G. Cibulskis, Richard E. Ghani, Azra C. Prioritizing the scale-up of interventions for malaria control and elimination |
title | Prioritizing the scale-up of interventions for malaria control and elimination |
title_full | Prioritizing the scale-up of interventions for malaria control and elimination |
title_fullStr | Prioritizing the scale-up of interventions for malaria control and elimination |
title_full_unstemmed | Prioritizing the scale-up of interventions for malaria control and elimination |
title_short | Prioritizing the scale-up of interventions for malaria control and elimination |
title_sort | prioritizing the scale-up of interventions for malaria control and elimination |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6454681/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30961603 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-019-2755-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT winskillpeter prioritizingthescaleupofinterventionsformalariacontrolandelimination AT walkerpatrickg prioritizingthescaleupofinterventionsformalariacontrolandelimination AT cibulskisricharde prioritizingthescaleupofinterventionsformalariacontrolandelimination AT ghaniazrac prioritizingthescaleupofinterventionsformalariacontrolandelimination |