Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26082391›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2016

National malaria vector control policy: an analysis of the decision to scale-up larviciding in Nigeria.

Kemi Tesfazghi, Jenny Hill, Caroline Jones, Hilary Ranson, Eve Worrall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kemi TesfazghiDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, UK.
Jenny HillDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine Pembroke Place, UK.
Caroline JonesDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, UK and Department of Public Health Research, KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya.
Hilary RansonDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, UK.
Eve WorrallDepartment of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, UK, Eve.Worrall@lstmed.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew vector control tools are needed to combat insecticide resistance and reduce malaria transmission. The World Health Organization (WHO) endorses larviciding as a supplementary vector control intervention using larvicides recommended by the WHO Pesticides Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES). The decision to scale-up larviciding in Nigeria provided an opportunity to investigate the factors influencing policy adoption and assess the role that actors and evidence play in the policymaking process, in order to draw lessons that help accelerate the uptake of new methods for vector control.

methodsA retrospective policy analysis was carried out using in-depth interviews with national level policy stakeholders to establish normative national vector control policy or strategy decision-making processes and compare these with the process that led to the decision to scale-up larviciding. The interviews were transcribed, then coded and analyzed using NVivo10. Data were coded according to pre-defined themes from an analytical policy framework developed a priori.

resultsStakeholders reported that the larviciding decision-making process deviated from the normative vector control decision-making process. National malaria policy is normally strongly influenced by WHO recommendations, but the potential of larviciding to contribute to national economic development objectives through larvicide production in Nigeria was cited as a key factor shaping the decision. The larviciding decision involved a restricted range of policy actors, and notably excluded actors that usually play advisory, consultative and evidence generation roles. Powerful actors limited the access of some actors to the policy processes and content. This may have limited the influence of scientific evidence in this policy decision.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that national vector control policy change can be facilitated by linking malaria control objectives to wider socioeconomic considerations and through engaging powerful policy champions to drive policy change and thereby accelerate access to new vector control tools.

Indexed as

Health PolicyPesticidesPolicy MakingAdministrative PersonnelHumansInterviews as TopicMalariaMosquito ControlNigeriaQualitative ResearchRetrospective StudiesPesticideslarval source managementLarvicidingmalariapolicy analysisvector control

Identifiers

PMID26082391
PMCPMC4724167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.