Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33110575›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2020

Estimating malaria chemoprevention and vector control coverage using program and campaign data: A scoping review of current practices and opportunities.

Johanna Nice, Honelgn Nahusenay, Erin Eckert, Thomas P Eisele, Ruth A Ashton

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Johanna NiceMEASURE Evaluation, Centre for Applied Malaria Research and Evaluation, Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Honelgn NahusenayMEASURE Evaluation, Centre for Applied Malaria Research and Evaluation, Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Erin EckertU.S. President's Malaria Initiative, United States Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C., USA.
Thomas P EiseleCentre for Applied Malaria Research and Evaluation, Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Ruth A AshtonMEASURE Evaluation, Centre for Applied Malaria Research and Evaluation, Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate estimation of intervention coverage is a vital component of malaria program monitoring and evaluation, both for process evaluation (how well program targets are achieved), and impact evaluation (whether intervention coverage had an impact on malaria burden). There is growing interest in maximizing the utility of program data to generate interim estimates of intervention coverage in the periods between large-scale cross-sectional surveys (the gold standard). As such, this study aimed to identify relevant concepts and themes that may guide future optimization of intervention coverage estimation using routinely collected data, or data collected during and following intervention campaigns, with a particular focus on strategies to define the denominator.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review of current practices to estimate malaria intervention coverage for insecticide-treated nets (ITNs); indoor residual spray (IRS); intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp); mass drug administration (MDA); and seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) interventions; case management was excluded. Multiple databases were searched for relevant articles published from January 1, 2015 to June 1, 2018. Additionally, we identified and included other guidance relevant to estimating population denominators, with a focus on innovative techniques.

resultsWhile program data have the potential to provide intervention coverage data, there are still substantial challenges in selecting appropriate denominators. The review identified a lack of consistency in how coverage was defined and reported for each intervention type, with denominator estimation methods not clearly or consistently reported, and denominator estimates rarely triangulated with other data sources to present the feasible range of denominator values and consequently the range of likely coverage estimates.

conclusionsThough household survey-based estimates of intervention coverage remain the gold standard, efforts should be made to further standardize practices for generating interim measurements of intervention coverage from program data, and for estimating and reporting population denominators. This includes fully describing any projections or adjustments made to existing census or population data, exploring opportunities to validate available data by comparing with other sources, and explaining how the denominator has been restricted (or not) to reflect exclusion criteria.

Indexed as

InsecticidesInsecticide-Treated BednetsMalariaChemopreventionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMass Drug AdministrationMosquito ControlPregnancyInsecticides

Identifiers

PMID33110575
PMCPMC7568932

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.