ArticleMalaria journal2024
Mixed-method evaluation study of a targeted mass drug administration of long-acting anti-malarials among children aged 3 months to 15 years in the Bossangoa sub-prefecture, Ouham, Central African Republic, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Malaria journal, 2024. 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.
- Azithromycin mass drug administration to reduce childhood mortality in humanitarian crises.PLOS global public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) initiated three cycles of dihydroartemisin-piperaquine (DHA-PQ) mass drug administration (MDA) for children aged three months to 15 years within Bossangoa sub-prefecture, Central African Republic. Coverage, clinical impact, and community members perspectives were evaluated to inform the use of MDAs in humanitarian emergencies.
methodsA household survey was undertaken after the MDA focusing on participation, recent illness among eligible children, and household satisfaction. Using routine surveillance data, the reduction during the MDA period compared to the same period of preceding two years in consultations, malaria diagnoses, malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) positivity in three MSF community healthcare facilities (HFs), and the reduction in severe malaria admissions at the regional hospital were estimated. Twenty-seven focus groups discussions (FGDs) with community members were conducted.
resultsOverall coverage based on the MDA card or verbal report was 94.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 86.3-97.8%). Among participants of the household survey, 2.6% (95% CI 1.6-40.3%) of round 3 MDA participants experienced illness in the preceding four weeks compared to 30.6% (95% CI 22.1-40.8%) of MDA non-participants. One community HF experienced a 54.5% (95% CI 50.8-57.9) reduction in consultations, a 73.7% (95% CI 70.5-76.5) reduction in malaria diagnoses, and 42.9% (95% CI 36.0-49.0) reduction in the proportion of positive RDTs among children under five. A second community HF experienced an increase in consultations (+ 15.1% (- 23.3 to 7.5)) and stable malaria diagnoses (4.2% (3.9-11.6)). A third community HF experienced an increase in consultations (+ 41.1% (95% CI 51.2-31.8) and malaria diagnoses (+ 37.3% (95% CI 47.4-27.9)). There were a 25.2% (95% CI 2.0-42.8) reduction in hospital admissions with severe malaria among children under five from the MDA area. FGDs revealed community members perceived less illness among children because of the MDA, as well as fewer hospitalizations. Other indirect benefits such as reduced household expenditure on healthcare were also described.
conclusionThe MDA achieved high coverage and community acceptance. While some positive health impact was observed, it was resource intensive, particularly in this rural context. The priority for malaria control in humanitarian contexts should remain diagnosis and treatment. MDA may be additional tool where the context supports its implementation.
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.