ArticleBMC research notes2019
Cost-effectiveness of two long-lasting insecticidal nets delivery models in mass campaign in rural Mozambique.
Article in BMC research notes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Strategic resource allocation for malaria elimination in endemic settings: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness evidence.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of outdoor residual spraying, insecticide-treated nets, and their combination for zoonotic malaria control in Sabah, Malaysia: a comparative analysis.Malaria journal · 2026Article
- Six decades of malaria vector control in southern Africa: a review of the entomological evidence-base.Malaria journal · 2022Review
- Understanding the current state-of-the-art of long-lasting insecticide nets and potential for sustainable alternatives.Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2022Review
- 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.BMC public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim is to compare the cost-effectiveness of two long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) delivery models (standard vs. new) in universal coverage (UC) campaigns in rural Mozambique.
resultsThe total financial cost of delivering LLINs was US$ 231,237.30 and US$ 174,790.14 in the intervention (302,648 LLINs were delivered) and control districts (219,613 LLINs were delivered), respectively. The average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) per LLIN delivered and ACER per household (HH) achieving UC was lower in the intervention districts. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per LLIN and ICER per HH reaching UC were US$ 0.68 and US$ 2.24, respectively. Both incremental net benefit (for delivered LLIN and for HHs reaching UC) were positive (intervention deemed cost-effective). Overall, the newer delivery model was the more cost-effective intervention. However, the long-term sustainability of either delivery models is far from guaranteed in Mozambique's current economic context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.