ArticleHeliyon2020
An economic analysis of malaria elimination program in Nepal.
Article in Heliyon, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGovernments have committed to eliminate malaria. But a decline in government investment in malaria interventions, particularly in developing countries such as Nepal, reveals a limited emphasis on malaria elimination that may be due to lack of strong evidence on benefits of the investment. This paper empirically analyses curative and preventive costs and benefits of Nepal's malaria elimination program from the perspectives of both service providers in the public sector and people who are at risk.
methodsCost benefit analysis of both curative and preventive interventions for malaria elimination was conducted using case and non-case household survey data. Secondary data were obtained from government sources. Ingredient approach and step-down methods were used to estimate costs of malaria elimination interventions, and willingness to pay (WTP) method and case averted approach to estimate benefits.
resultsCurative intervention of malaria elimination program is economically viable in Nepal with a net present value (NPV) of USD 23 million, benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 1.58 and internal rate of return of 63%. Malaria preventive intervention is highly beneficial with NPV of USD 435 million and BCR of 2.13. An annual investment of USD 36.59 million is required to continue the current pattern of malaria reduction that can generate societal benefits of USD 92.81 million. From this investment, the government can save USD 132 million by the end of 2025. The maximum WTP of case households for the intervention is USD 57 per household which is 63% higher than that of non-case households.
conclusionMalaria elimination program in Nepal is economically viable and investment worthy. As the preventive intervention generates much higher net benefits than the curative intervention, the government should emphasize on preventive intervention while continuing the curative interventions.
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.