Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38982498›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2024

Examining geographical inequalities for malaria outcomes and spending on malaria in 40 malaria-endemic countries, 2010-2020.

Angela E Apeagyei, Nishali K Patel, Ian Cogswell, Kevin O'Rourke, Golsum Tsakalos, Joseph Dieleman

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Angela E Apeagyei *Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 3980 15th Ave NE, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. amicah@uw.edu.
Nishali K Patel *Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 3980 15th Ave NE, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Ian CogswellInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 3980 15th Ave NE, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Kevin O'RourkeInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 3980 15th Ave NE, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Golsum TsakalosInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 3980 15th Ave NE, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Joseph DielemanInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 3980 15th Ave NE, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile substantial gains have been made in the fight against malaria over the past 20 years, malaria morbidity and mortality are marked by inequality. The equitable elimination of malaria within countries will be determined in part by greater spending on malaria interventions, and how those investments are allocated. This study aims to identify potential drivers of malaria outcome inequality and to demonstrate how spending through different mechanisms might lead to greater health equity.

methodsUsing the Gini index, subnational estimates of malaria incidence and mortality rates from 2010 to 2020 were used to quantify the degree of inequality in malaria burden within countries with incidence rates above 5000 cases per 100,000 people in 2020. Estimates of Gini indices represent within-country distributions of disease burden, with high values corresponding to inequitable distributions of malaria burden within a country. Time series analyses were used to quantify associations of malaria inequality with malaria spending, controlling for country socioeconomic and population characteristics.

resultsBetween 2010 and 2020, varying levels of inequality in malaria burden within malaria-endemic countries was found. In 2020, values of the Gini index ranged from 0.06 to 0.73 for incidence, 0.07 to 0.73 for mortality, and 0.00 to 0.36 for case fatality. Greater total malaria spending, spending on health systems strengthening for malaria, healthcare access and quality, and national malaria incidence were associated with reductions in malaria outcomes inequality within countries. In addition, government expenditure on malaria, aggregated government and donor spending on treatment, and maternal educational attainment were also associated with changes in malaria outcome inequality among countries with the greatest malaria burden.

conclusionsThe findings from this study suggest that prioritizing health systems strengthening in malaria spending and malaria spending in general especially from governments will help to reduce inequality of the malaria burden within countries. Given heterogeneity in outcomes in countries currently fighting to control malaria, and the challenges in increasing both domestic and international funding allocated to control and eliminate malaria, the efficient targeting of limited resources is critical to attain global malaria eradication goals.

Indexed as

MalariaGlobal HealthHealth ExpendituresHumansIncidenceSocioeconomic FactorsDevelopment assistance for healthHealth systemsInequalityMalariaResource allocation

Identifiers

PMID38982498
PMCPMC11234708

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.