The evidence base on the cost-effectiveness of malaria control measures in Africa

This review assesses the range and quality of the evidence base on the cost-effectiveness of malaria prevention and treatment in sub-Saharan Africa. Fourteen studies are reviewed, covering insecticide-treated nets, residual spraying, chemoprophylaxis for children, chemoprophylaxis or intermittent tr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Health policy and planning 1999-12, Vol.14 (4), p.301-312
Main Authors: GOODMAN, CA, MILLS, AJ
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Africa
Africa South of the Sahara - epidemiology
Antimalarials - economics
Bedding and Linens - economics
Blood Diseases
Capital costs
Child, Preschool
Children & youth
Control
Cost analysis
Cost control
Cost effectiveness
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Data Quality
Disease prevention
Diseases
Female
Health Care Costs
Health Care Services
Health planning
Health Policy
Health Research
Humans
Infant
Infant, Newborn
Insecticides
Insecticides - economics
Literature reviews
Malaria
Malaria - economics
Malaria - mortality
Malaria - prevention & control
Malaria Vaccines - economics
Methodological Problems
Pregnancy
Prevention
Public Health
Ratios
Review article
Social control
Sub Saharan Africa
Vaccines
Womens health
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This review assesses the range and quality of the evidence base on the cost-effectiveness of malaria prevention and treatment in sub-Saharan Africa. Fourteen studies are reviewed, covering insecticide-treated nets, residual spraying, chemoprophylaxis for children, chemoprophylaxis or intermittent treatment for pregnant women, a hypothetical vaccine, and changing the first line drug for treatment. The available evidence provides some guidance to decision-makers. However, the potential to inform policy debates is limited by the gross lack of information on the costs and effects of many interventions, the very small number of costeffectiveness analyses available, the lack of evidence on the costs and effects of packages of measures, and the problems in generalizing or comparing studies that relate to specific settings and use different methodologies and outcome measures.
ISSN:0268-1080
1460-2237
DOI:10.1093/heapol/14.4.301