Free Content The cost and cost-effectiveness of malaria vector control by residual insecticide house-spraying in southern Mozambique: a rural and urban analysis

You have access to the full text article on a website external to ingentaconnect.

Please click here to view this article on Wiley Online Library.

You may be required to register and activate access on Wiley Online Library before you can obtain the full text. If you have any queries please visit Wiley Online Library

Download Article:

Abstract:

Summary Objectives 

To compare two separately funded, but operationally similar, residual household-spraying (RHS) initiatives; one rural and one peri-urban in southern Mozambique. Methods 

The rural programme is a regional project involving the participation and co-ordination of organizations across three countries in southern Africa and is focussed on control in an area in Mozambique of 7552 km2. The second programme focusses on spraying a peri-urban community within a 10-km radius around MOZAL, an aluminium smelter plant of area 410 km2. An ingredients approach was used to derive unit costs for both the rural and peri-urban spraying programmes using detail retrospective cost data and effectiveness indicators. Results 

The economic cost per person covered per year using Carbamates for indoor residual spraying (IRS) in the rural area, excluding the costs of project management and monitoring and surveillance was $3.48 and in the peri-urban area, $2.16. The financial costs per person covered in the rural area and peri-urban area per year were $3.86 and $2.41, respectively. The economic costs per person covered were respectively increased by 39% and 31% when project management and monitoring and surveillance were included. The main driving forces behind the costs of delivering RHS are twofold: the population covered and insecticide used. Computed economic and financial costs are presented for all four insecticide families available for use in RHS. Conclusions 

The results from both these initiatives, especially the rural area, should be interpreted as conservative cost estimates as they exclude the additional health gains that the newly introduced programmes have had on malaria rates in the neighbouring areas of South Africa and Swaziland. Both these initiatives show that introducing an IRS programme can deliver a reduction in malaria-related suffering providing financial support, political will, collaborative management and training and community involvement are in place.

Keywords: cost analysis; malaria; residual household-spraying; southern Africa

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3156.2003.01150.x

Affiliations: 1:  Health Economics and Financing Programme & Gates Malaria Partnership, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK 2:  Malaria Research Programme, Durban, South Africa 3:  National Malaria Control Programme, Ministry of Health, Mozambique

Publication date: January 1, 2004

Related content

Tools

Favourites

Share Content

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
ingentaconnect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more