ReviewMalaria journal2025
African leaders and regional institutions need to take the bull by the horns: a perspective on the impact of the 2025 funding cuts to malaria programmes.
Review in Malaria journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determinants of malaria prevalence among children under 5 years of age in 17 sub-Saharan African countries: insights from Malaria Indicator Surveys.Global health action · 2026Article
- Beyond national household surveys: routine and alternative approaches to sustain robust evidence-based decision making.Malaria journal · 2026Review
- Maternal and cross-stage effects of Metarhizium pingshaense fungal infection on the malaria mosquito Anopheles coluzzii life-history.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite global malaria programmes already operating within resource constraints, 2025 saw a significant decrease in funding following the US government's termination of most of its global health programmes, as well as the decline in development aid spending by the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, and other countries. The disruption of funding was sudden, with most African countries lacking adequate contingency plans. This, despite most of the malaria burden being in Africa (94% of 263 million cases in 2023), accounting for a reduction in gross domestic product of up to 1.3% annually, and half a billion lost workdays. Key malaria control programme activities have been severely impacted, including insecticide-treated bed net distribution, seasonal malaria chemoprevention campaigns, and malaria indicator surveys. In the wake of the funding cuts, some African governments have committed to increasing efforts to raise funds for malaria programmes from the private sector. The Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed a strategy for governments to increase health budgets while seeking additional funding from the private sector, all while maintaining transparency and accountability. If recent malaria control gains are to be sustained and to prevent resurgence across the continent, African governments will need to increase domestic funding and build robust public-private partnerships for their malaria programmes. Lessons can be learnt from countries where these partnerships have succeeded or failed. Leadership by the African Union, the Africa CDC, the African Leaders Malaria Alliance, and other regional bodies is crucial to support countries in taking immediate, substantive steps and benchmarking progress.
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.