ArticleMalariaWorld journal2011
Malaria control for rural areas in Uganda: localizing the interventions.
Article in MalariaWorld journal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions and experiences of caretakers of children with neurologic deficits after severe malaria in Uganda.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026Article
- Integrated vector management for malaria control in Uganda: knowledge, perceptions and policy development.Malaria journal · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Malaria is a public health and socio-economic threat to development in most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and particularly in rural areas. In Uganda, a number of malaria control interventions have been adopted, most of which are part of the international Roll Back Malaria (RBM) campaign. The spread of malaria is reducing but the prevalence is still high, especially in rural areas where mostly pregnant women and children bear the blunt of the negative effects of ineffective control. It is suggested that strengthening efforts towards localizing existing and new malaria control initiatives is one of the best available options to accelerating malaria control. Methods: Literature from within and outside Uganda is reviewed. Opinions of the author are used to reinforce the reviewed literature. In addition, existing literature is also substantiated using the author's experience and knowledge about malaria control. The article focuses on rural Uganda although the literature reviewed and subsequent conclusions and recommendations are also applicable to other countries. Main discussions: Malaria is still the major cause of illness in the country. Available information shows that most of the regions in the country that are predominantly rural have a high prevalence rate. Malaria is, however, reducing due to a number of factors including the adoption of the global malaria control initiatives and use of community-based approaches. The approaches, however, have been limited and faced with constraints, which could be improved through reinforcing them with localized initiatives. Conclusions: There are a number of reasons why malaria prevalence in Uganda is still high including limited socio-economic infrastructure, long distances to health units, and huge costs of treatment, among others. However, strengthening efforts towards localization offers one of the most convenient solutions.
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.