ArticleMalaria journal2024
Willingness to pay for a mosquito bite prevention 'forest pack' in Cambodia: results of a discrete choice experiment.
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 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.
- Evaluating the acceptability and feasibility of new mosquito bite prevention tools in a "forest pack" to support malaria elimination in Cambodia.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- The costs and logistics of distributing 'forest packs' containing novel vector control tools to forest-exposed populations in Cambodia.Malaria journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProgress towards malaria elimination in the Greater Mekong Subregion has left much of the residual malaria transmission concentrated among forest-exposed populations for whom traditional domicile focused malaria vector control is unlikely to be effective. New tools to protect these populations from vector biting outdoors are needed.
methodsAlongside implementation research on the deployment of a "forest pack" consisting of a volatile pyrethroid (transfluthrin)-based spatial repellent (VPSR), a picaridin-based topical repellent and etofenprox treatment of clothing, an assessment was made of participant willingness to pay for the forest packs and variants of the packs using a discrete choice experiment.
resultsParticipants showed willingness to pay for forest packs consistent with full-cost recovery for VPSR devices. The inclusion of a full malaria season's worth of VPSR devices increased the willingness to pay for a forest pack by 15% (p = 0.061). At a price of approximately 10 USD, approximately 50% of participants were willing to pay for a forest pack which included a full season's worth of VPSR.
conclusionForest packs which include VPSR are likely to be acceptable to the target forest-exposed populations, and those which include VPSR products may even have potential for commercial sales or some cost-recovery.
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.