Cargando…

Coverage outcomes (effects), costs, cost-effectiveness, and equity of two combinations of long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) distribution channels in Kenya: a two-arm study under operational conditions

BACKGROUND: Malaria-endemic countries distribute long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) through combined channels with ambitious, universal coverage (UC) targets. Kenya has used eight channels with variable results. To inform national decision-makers, this two-arm study compares coverage (effects),...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Worrall, Eve, Were, Vincent, Matope, Agnes, Gama, Elvis, Olewe, Joseph, Mwambi, Dennis, Desai, Meghna, Kariuki, Simon, Buff, Ann M., Niessen, Louis W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7720381/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33287766
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09846-4
_version_ 1783619840242614272
author Worrall, Eve
Were, Vincent
Matope, Agnes
Gama, Elvis
Olewe, Joseph
Mwambi, Dennis
Desai, Meghna
Kariuki, Simon
Buff, Ann M.
Niessen, Louis W.
author_facet Worrall, Eve
Were, Vincent
Matope, Agnes
Gama, Elvis
Olewe, Joseph
Mwambi, Dennis
Desai, Meghna
Kariuki, Simon
Buff, Ann M.
Niessen, Louis W.
author_sort Worrall, Eve
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Malaria-endemic countries distribute long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) through combined channels with ambitious, universal coverage (UC) targets. Kenya has used eight channels with variable results. To inform national decision-makers, this two-arm study compares coverage (effects), costs, cost-effectiveness, and equity of two combinations of LLIN distribution channels in Kenya. METHODS: Two combinations of five delivery channels were compared as ‘intervention’ and ‘control’ arms. The intervention arm comprised four channels: community health volunteer (CHV), antenatal and child health clinics (ANCC), social marketing (SM) and commercial outlets (CO). The control arm consisted of the intervention arm channels except mass campaign (MC) replaced CHV. Primary analysis used random sample household survey data, service-provider costs, and voucher or LLIN distribution data to compare between-arm effects, costs, cost-effectiveness, and equity. Secondary analyses compared costs and equity by channel. RESULTS: The multiple distribution channels used in both arms of the study achieved high LLIN ownership and use. The intervention arm had significantly lower reported LLIN use the night before the survey (84·8% [95% CI 83·0–86·4%] versus 89·2% [95% CI 87·8–90·5%], p < 0·0001), higher unit costs ($10·56 versus $7·17), was less cost-effective ($86·44, 95% range $75·77–$102·77 versus $69·20, 95% range $63·66–$77·23) and more inequitable (Concentration index [C.Ind] = 0·076 [95% CI 0·057 to 0·095 versus C.Ind = 0.049 [95% CI 0·030 to 0·067]) than the control arm. Unit cost per LLIN distributed was lowest for MC ($3·10) followed by CHV ($10·81) with both channels being moderately inequitable in favour of least-poor households. CONCLUSION: In line with best practices, the multiple distribution channel model achieved high LLIN ownership and use in this Kenyan study setting. The control-arm combination, which included MC, was the most cost-effective way to increase UC at household level. Mass campaigns, combined with continuous distribution channels, are an effective and cost-effective way to achieve UC in Kenya. The findings are relevant to other countries and donors seeking to optimise LLIN distribution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The assignment of the intervention was not at the discretion of the investigators; therefore, this study did not require registration. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-020-09846-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7720381
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77203812020-12-07 Coverage outcomes (effects), costs, cost-effectiveness, and equity of two combinations of long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) distribution channels in Kenya: a two-arm study under operational conditions Worrall, Eve Were, Vincent Matope, Agnes Gama, Elvis Olewe, Joseph Mwambi, Dennis Desai, Meghna Kariuki, Simon Buff, Ann M. Niessen, Louis W. BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Malaria-endemic countries distribute long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) through combined channels with ambitious, universal coverage (UC) targets. Kenya has used eight channels with variable results. To inform national decision-makers, this two-arm study compares coverage (effects), costs, cost-effectiveness, and equity of two combinations of LLIN distribution channels in Kenya. METHODS: Two combinations of five delivery channels were compared as ‘intervention’ and ‘control’ arms. The intervention arm comprised four channels: community health volunteer (CHV), antenatal and child health clinics (ANCC), social marketing (SM) and commercial outlets (CO). The control arm consisted of the intervention arm channels except mass campaign (MC) replaced CHV. Primary analysis used random sample household survey data, service-provider costs, and voucher or LLIN distribution data to compare between-arm effects, costs, cost-effectiveness, and equity. Secondary analyses compared costs and equity by channel. RESULTS: The multiple distribution channels used in both arms of the study achieved high LLIN ownership and use. The intervention arm had significantly lower reported LLIN use the night before the survey (84·8% [95% CI 83·0–86·4%] versus 89·2% [95% CI 87·8–90·5%], p < 0·0001), higher unit costs ($10·56 versus $7·17), was less cost-effective ($86·44, 95% range $75·77–$102·77 versus $69·20, 95% range $63·66–$77·23) and more inequitable (Concentration index [C.Ind] = 0·076 [95% CI 0·057 to 0·095 versus C.Ind = 0.049 [95% CI 0·030 to 0·067]) than the control arm. Unit cost per LLIN distributed was lowest for MC ($3·10) followed by CHV ($10·81) with both channels being moderately inequitable in favour of least-poor households. CONCLUSION: In line with best practices, the multiple distribution channel model achieved high LLIN ownership and use in this Kenyan study setting. The control-arm combination, which included MC, was the most cost-effective way to increase UC at household level. Mass campaigns, combined with continuous distribution channels, are an effective and cost-effective way to achieve UC in Kenya. The findings are relevant to other countries and donors seeking to optimise LLIN distribution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The assignment of the intervention was not at the discretion of the investigators; therefore, this study did not require registration. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-020-09846-4. BioMed Central 2020-12-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7720381/ /pubmed/33287766 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09846-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Worrall, Eve
Were, Vincent
Matope, Agnes
Gama, Elvis
Olewe, Joseph
Mwambi, Dennis
Desai, Meghna
Kariuki, Simon
Buff, Ann M.
Niessen, Louis W.
Coverage outcomes (effects), costs, cost-effectiveness, and equity of two combinations of long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) distribution channels in Kenya: a two-arm study under operational conditions
title Coverage outcomes (effects), costs, cost-effectiveness, and equity of two combinations of long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) distribution channels in Kenya: a two-arm study under operational conditions
title_full Coverage outcomes (effects), costs, cost-effectiveness, and equity of two combinations of long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) distribution channels in Kenya: a two-arm study under operational conditions
title_fullStr Coverage outcomes (effects), costs, cost-effectiveness, and equity of two combinations of long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) distribution channels in Kenya: a two-arm study under operational conditions
title_full_unstemmed Coverage outcomes (effects), costs, cost-effectiveness, and equity of two combinations of long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) distribution channels in Kenya: a two-arm study under operational conditions
title_short Coverage outcomes (effects), costs, cost-effectiveness, and equity of two combinations of long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) distribution channels in Kenya: a two-arm study under operational conditions
title_sort coverage outcomes (effects), costs, cost-effectiveness, and equity of two combinations of long-lasting insecticidal net (llin) distribution channels in kenya: a two-arm study under operational conditions
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7720381/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33287766
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09846-4
work_keys_str_mv AT worralleve coverageoutcomeseffectscostscosteffectivenessandequityoftwocombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidalnetllindistributionchannelsinkenyaatwoarmstudyunderoperationalconditions
AT werevincent coverageoutcomeseffectscostscosteffectivenessandequityoftwocombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidalnetllindistributionchannelsinkenyaatwoarmstudyunderoperationalconditions
AT matopeagnes coverageoutcomeseffectscostscosteffectivenessandequityoftwocombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidalnetllindistributionchannelsinkenyaatwoarmstudyunderoperationalconditions
AT gamaelvis coverageoutcomeseffectscostscosteffectivenessandequityoftwocombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidalnetllindistributionchannelsinkenyaatwoarmstudyunderoperationalconditions
AT olewejoseph coverageoutcomeseffectscostscosteffectivenessandequityoftwocombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidalnetllindistributionchannelsinkenyaatwoarmstudyunderoperationalconditions
AT mwambidennis coverageoutcomeseffectscostscosteffectivenessandequityoftwocombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidalnetllindistributionchannelsinkenyaatwoarmstudyunderoperationalconditions
AT desaimeghna coverageoutcomeseffectscostscosteffectivenessandequityoftwocombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidalnetllindistributionchannelsinkenyaatwoarmstudyunderoperationalconditions
AT kariukisimon coverageoutcomeseffectscostscosteffectivenessandequityoftwocombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidalnetllindistributionchannelsinkenyaatwoarmstudyunderoperationalconditions
AT buffannm coverageoutcomeseffectscostscosteffectivenessandequityoftwocombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidalnetllindistributionchannelsinkenyaatwoarmstudyunderoperationalconditions
AT niessenlouisw coverageoutcomeseffectscostscosteffectivenessandequityoftwocombinationsoflonglastinginsecticidalnetllindistributionchannelsinkenyaatwoarmstudyunderoperationalconditions