Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39521995›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2024

Examining malaria treatment and prevention spending efficiency in malaria-endemic countries, 2000-2020.

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

Abstract 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. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

6 authors.

Angela E Apeagyei *Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Hans Rosling Center, 3980 15th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. amicah@uw.edu.
Ian Cogswell *Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Hans Rosling Center, 3980 15th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Nishali K PatelInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Hans Rosling Center, 3980 15th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Kevin O'RourkeInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Hans Rosling Center, 3980 15th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Golsum TsakalosInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Hans Rosling Center, 3980 15th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Joseph L DielemanInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Hans Rosling Center, 3980 15th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.

Funding

Gates Foundation INV-005967
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2021, an estimated 750,000 people died from malaria. Despite this significant burden, globally, malaria incidence and mortality rates have substantially dropped over the last 30 years. However, growth in spending on malaria and improved outcomes have recently stagnated. This development has made it more important than ever to understand what constitutes efficient spending on malaria.

methodsData from various sources, including disaggregated data on malaria spending from the WHO Global Malaria Programme, National Health Accounts, and the Global Burden of Disease 2021 study was used in this study. The National Health Account report is produced at the end of a national accounting exercise that aims to map the flow of financial resources from all perspectives-incl. sources, agencies-in the health sector. Malaria spending estimates for all malaria-endemic countries from 2000 to 2020, with government and donor spending disaggregated into 11 key programme areas were generated in this study. Then, these spending estimates were combined with outcome data and estimated country efficiency using robust non-parametric stochastic frontier analysis and linear regression to examine the types of malaria spending associated with better malaria outcomes.

resultsAcross malaria-endemic countries, there is wide variation in malaria spending, with spending associated with the malaria burden within the country. Argentina, Paraguay, and Turkmenistan stood out as examples of low spending relative to their respective malaria incident per person at risk rates, while the Philippines, Guatemala, and Sri Lanka stood out as countries with case fatality ratios that were low relative to their malaria spending. Having a greater proportion of malaria spending sourced from donors or on prevention was associated with increases in incidence efficiency, while having a greater proportion of spending on anti-malarial medicines was associated with increases in case fatality efficiency.

conclusionsPrioritization of spending on prevention, anti-malarial medicines, and health systems strengthening can fight incident cases and fatalities simultaneously, especially in resource-scarce, malaria-endemic countries. Furthermore, improving the availability, frequency of collection, and quality of detailed disaggregated spending data is essential to support work that strengthens the evidence base on spending efficiency and work that improves understanding of how spending on malaria could be leveraged to bridge gaps in equity across population groups.

Indexed as

MalariaAntimalarialsEndemic DiseasesGlobal HealthHealth ExpendituresHumansAntimalarialsDevelopment assistance for healthGovernment expenditureHealth financingMalariaSpending

Identifiers

PMID39521995
PMCPMC11550530

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.