Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32928227›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2020

Costing malaria interventions from pilots to elimination programmes.

Katya Galactionova, Mar Velarde, Kafula Silumbe, John Miller, Anthony McDonnell, Ricardo Aguas, Thomas A Smith, Melissa A Penny

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Mass Drug Administration: Contextual Factor Considerations.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2024
    Review
  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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Katya GalactionovaDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland. e.galactionova@unibas.ch.
Mar VelardeDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Kafula SilumbeMalaria Control and Elimination Partnership in Africa at PATH (MACEPA), Lusaka, Zambia.
John MillerMalaria Control and Elimination Partnership in Africa at PATH (MACEPA), Lusaka, Zambia.
Anthony McDonnellMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Ricardo AguasMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Thomas A SmithDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Melissa A PennyDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute · CHMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit · THNational HIV/AIDS/STI/TB Council · ZMUniversity of Basel · CH

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation OPP 1159934Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung PP00P3 170702
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMalaria programmes in countries with low transmission levels require evidence to optimize deployment of current and new tools to reach elimination with limited resources. Recent pilots of elimination strategies in Ethiopia, Senegal, and Zambia produced evidence of their epidemiological impacts and costs. There is a need to generalize these findings to different epidemiological and health systems contexts.

methodsDrawing on experience of implementing partners, operational documents and costing studies from these pilots, reference scenarios were defined for rapid reporting (RR), reactive case detection (RACD), mass drug administration (MDA), and in-door residual spraying (IRS). These generalized interventions from their trial implementation to one typical of programmatic delivery. In doing so, resource use due to interventions was isolated from research activities and was related to the pilot setting. Costing models developed around this reference implementation, standardized the scope of resources costed, the valuation of resource use, and the setting in which interventions were evaluated. Sensitivity analyses were used to inform generalizability of the estimates and model assumptions.

resultsPopulated with local prices and resource use from the pilots, the models yielded an average annual economic cost per capita of $0.18 for RR, $0.75 for RACD, $4.28 for MDA (two rounds), and $1.79 for IRS (one round, 50% households). Intervention design and resource use at service delivery were key drivers of variation in costs of RR, MDA, and RACD. Scale was the most important parameter for IRS. Overall price level was a minor contributor, except for MDA where drugs accounted for 70% of the cost. The analyses showed that at implementation scales comparable to health facility catchment area, systematic correlations between model inputs characterizing implementation and setting produce large gradients in costs.

conclusionsProspective costing models are powerful tools to explore resource and cost implications of policy alternatives. By formalizing translation of operational data into an estimate of intervention cost, these models provide the methodological infrastructure to strengthen capacity gap for economic evaluation in endemic countries. The value of this approach for decision-making is enhanced when primary cost data collection is designed to enable analysis of the efficiency of operational inputs in relation to features of the trial or the setting, thus facilitating transferability.

Indexed as

Pilot ProjectsDisease EradicationEthiopiaHumansMalariaSenegalZambiaComparative cost-effectivenessCost modelsCostsIRSMalaria controlMalaria eliminationMalaria rapid reportingMDARACDResource-allocation

Identifiers

PMID32928227
PMCPMC7491157
OpenAlexW3085696863

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.