ArticleMalaria journal2026
Community health volunteers improve access to malaria case management in Siaya County, Kenya.
Article in Malaria journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Malaria remains a major health challenge in western Kenya, where transmission persists despite decades of control efforts. Community health volunteers (CHVs) are increasingly engaged in community case management (CCM) to expand timely malaria care, but quantitative evidence of their contributions is limited. This analysis evaluated the effectiveness of CHVs in malaria case management and their impact on healthcare access in Siaya County. Data from 1.4 million encounters recorded by 936 CHVs and 86 health facilities (HFs) across 713 villages (2021-2023) were analyzed. The outcomes included coverage, testing practices, test positivity rates (TPRs), malaria incidence, and adherence to treatment guidelines. CHV coverage was defined as adequate at one CHV per ≤ 500 people; HF access was estimated via the two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method, incorporating proximity and utilization, with access scores classified as adequate or inadequate. CHV coverage was adequate for 82.5% of the villages vs. 30% for HFs. CHVs managed 28.1% of all encounters, including 12.1% of suspected malaria cases and 15.6% of rapid diagnostic test-positive cases. A greater proportion of CHV-suspected patients reported fever (77.0% vs. 53.1%). HFs more suspected and febrile cases, but afebrile testing was similar. CHVs recorded higher TPRs than HFs did (82.0% vs. 64.3%). Nearly all confirmed malaria cases received antimalarials. Incorporating CHV data increased malaria incidence estimates by 18% (467 vs. 549 per 1,000 population). CHVs extend access to malaria diagnosis and treatment, particularly in areas with limited HF coverage. Their practices align with national guidelines, and program expansion with adequate support could enhance malaria control in resource-limited settings.
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.