Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29059179›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2017

Cost-effectiveness of adding indoor residual spraying to case management in Afghan refugee settlements in Northwest Pakistan during a prolonged malaria epidemic.

Natasha Howard, Lorna Guinness, Mark Rowland, Naeem Durrani, Kristian S Hansen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Malaria Control Interventions: A Systematic Literature Review.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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.

Natasha HowardLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4174-7349
Lorna GuinnessLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Mark RowlandLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Naeem DurraniHealthNet-TPO, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Kristian S HansenLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFinancing of malaria control for displaced populations is limited in scope and duration, making cost-effectiveness analyses relevant but difficult. This study analyses cost-effectiveness of adding prevention through targeted indoor residual spraying (IRS) to case management in Afghan refugee settlements in Pakistan during a prolonged malaria epidemic. METHODS/

findingsAn intervention study design was selected, taking a societal perspective. Provider and household costs of vector control and case management were collected from provider records and community survey. Health outcomes (e.g. cases and DALYs averted) were derived and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for cases prevented and DALYs averted calculated. Population, treatment cost, women's time, days of productivity lost, case fatality rate, cases prevented, and DALY assumptions were tested in sensitivity analysis. Malaria incidence peaked at 44/1,000 population in year 2, declining to 14/1,000 in year 5. In total, 370,000 malaria cases, 80% vivax, were diagnosed and treated and an estimated 67,988 vivax cases and 18,578 falciparum and mixed cases prevented. Mean annual programme cost per capita was US$0.56. The additional cost of including IRS over five years per case prevented was US$39; US$50 for vivax (US$43 in years 1-3, US$80 in years 4-5) and US$182 for falciparum (US$139 in years 1-3 and US$680 in years 4-5). Per DALY averted this was US$266 (US$220 in years 1-3 and US$486 in years 4-5) and thus 'highly cost-effective' or cost-effective using WHO and comparison thresholds.

conclusionsAdding IRS was cost-effective in this moderate endemicity, low mortality setting. It was more cost-effective when transmission was highest, becoming less so as transmission reduced. Because vivax was three times more common than falciparum and the case fatality rate was low, cost-effectiveness estimations for cases prevented appear reliable and more definitive for vivax malaria.

Indexed as

RefugeesAerosolsCase ManagementCost-Benefit AnalysisEpidemicsHealth Care CostsHumansIncidenceInsecticidesMalaria, FalciparumMalaria, VivaxMosquito ControlPakistanAerosolsInsecticides

Identifiers

PMID29059179
PMCPMC5695615

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.