Health Policy and Planning Advance Access published online on June 28, 2007
Health Policy and Planning, doi:10.1093/heapol/czm021
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delivery systems for insecticide treated and untreated mosquito nets in Africa: categorization and outcomes achieved
1 TARGETS Consortium, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.
2 Child and Reproductive Health Group, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, UK.
3 Health Economics and Financing Programme, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.
* Corresponding author. TARGETS Consortium, Disease Control and Vector Biology, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. Tel: (0)207 927 2648. Fax: (0)207 580 9075. E-mail: Jayne.Webster{at}lshtm.ac.uk
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsFindingsDiscussionEndnotesReferences |
|---|
Introduction Coverage of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) in sub-Saharan Africa is still low despite their proven efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Delivery systems for ITNs have been hotly debated, but there has been no structured approach to assessing their relative effectiveness. This paper aims to: propose a categorization of ITN and mosquito net delivery systems; classify existing systems according to this categorization; critique coverage measures reported; synthesize evidence about the levels of coverage achieved by each system; and identify current analytical gaps and future priorities.
Methods We undertook a systematic review of published papers complemented by grey literature from projects and programmes. A 4-by-3 matrix was developed of delivery sector and cost to end user. Delivery systems were placed in the matrix based on project descriptions. Coverage and equity of coverage outcomes of the identified delivery systems were assessed for consistency with standard Roll Back Malaria (RBM) coverage indicators. These were placed in the matrix for comparison of outcomes by ITN delivery category.
Results Only 17 references with coverage data were identified, and amongst these there was variation from the RBM indicators. We identified three sets of coverage data where delivery and surveys to assess coverage of target groups were at national scale: public-free delivery in Togo; mixed-partially subsidized delivery in Malawi, and private-unsubsidized delivery in The Gambia. The highest level of household ownership was achieved through public-free delivery (62.5%), whilst use by pregnant women and by children under 5 was highest through private-unsubsidized delivery (67.2 and 67.7%, respectively).
Conclusions There are no comparative studies of delivery systems for ITNs from which definitive evidence can be drawn, so conclusions on the relative merits of different delivery systems and levels of subsidy cannot be made. Development of methods of attributing household-level outcomes to specific delivery systems would aid in providing this evidence base. As countries scale-up efforts to deliver ITNs, our matrix provides an analytical tool for developing a comprehensive mapping of systems and outcomes. To guide strategic decision-making, cross-country and cross-regional comparisons of the outcomes of systems are needed to facilitate an analysis of the influence of contextual factors.
Key Words: Insecticide treated nets, bednets, malaria, coverage, delivery
KEY MESSAGES
|
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsFindingsDiscussionEndnotesReferences |
|---|
Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) are an effective intervention against malaria, which is one of the most important causes of child mortality in Africa. They have been shown to reduce the number of childhood deaths by about one-fifth, therefore saving around six lives for every 1000 under-five children protected per year in countries of sub-Saharan Africa (Lengeler 2004
). ITNs have been shown to be cost-effective, with an estimated cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted of US$48 (Goodman et al. 1999). Coverage of ITNs, defined as use by children under 5 years of age, is currently low at an average of 3% across sub-Saharan Africa (WHO 2005). We need to identify the most effective ways of delivering ITNs to the populations at risk, in order to increase coverage levels significantly (Victora et al. 2004). The delivery system for mosquito nets, ITNs and/or insecticide is defined here as the mechanism by which product moves from the manufacturer to the household and involves several stages. An ITN consists of a mosquito net and insecticide, which may be delivered separately or in combination. When delivered in combination the ITN may be a long lasting insecticidal net (LLIN), a pre-treated net or an untreated net that is packaged (bundled) with an insecticide treatment kit. There are wide varieties of mosquito net and insecticide products available.
Historically, mosquito nets were sold in markets in Africa and Asia long before the development of the new technology of ITNs (Aikins et al. 1993); these nets were untreated and unsubsidized. ITNs were originally provided free to selected populations taking part in efficacy trials by researchers, and were therefore mainly delivered by implementers of the research, free of charge (D’Alessandro et al. 1995a; Binka et al. 1996; Nevill et al. 1996; Habluetzel et al. 1997; Habluetzel et al. 1999). These efficacy studies confirmed ITNs as a powerful intervention for reducing child morbidity and mortality (Lengeler 1998) and were followed by effectiveness studies to determine impact under programme conditions (D’Alessandro et al. 1995b; D’Alessandro et al. 1997; Rowland et al. 1997; Abdulla et al. 2001). Effectiveness studies involved a variety of delivery systems, the first one being The Gambia National ITN Programme (D’Alessandro et al. 1997), where insecticide was delivered free (though charges were implemented subsequently) to treat mosquito nets purchased through the retail sector. The focus of both efficacy and early effectiveness studies was impact of ITNs on malaria morbidity and mortality; the systems through which the ITNs were delivered were not evaluated.
The diversity of products constituting an ITN, and the corresponding diversity of mechanisms through which they can be distributed from manufacturers to households, has led to considerable debate. Key to this debate is whether ITNs, nets and/or insecticide are public or private goods, and the respective roles of the public and private sector in their delivery (Curtis et al. 2003; Lines et al. 2003), such that ITN policy has evolved significantly over the past 15 years (Hill et al. 2006). Roll Back Malaria (RBM) has attempted to provide guidance on delivery mechanisms by developing a consensus framework based on existing evidence, which provides strategic recommendations for African countries developing national strategies for scaling-up delivery of ITNs (WHO 2002). The framework proposes a two-pronged approach: targeted and sustained subsidies for those at greatest risk (biological, economic or geographic risk), and the development of an enabling environment for expansion of the commercial sector. There is, however, still some confusion over free versus subsidized commodities, commercial delivery versus public delivery, and how best to achieve a balance between ‘quick wins’ today versus sustaining coverage for tomorrow (Curtis et al. 2003; Lines et al. 2003).
There have been few attempts to clarify options better by systematic evaluation of clearly defined delivery systems for ITNs. Hanson et al. (2004) described four models for the delivery of nets and insecticides by public sector or non-governmental organizations (NGOs): (1) purely public sector delivery; (2) community-based projects; (3) social marketing; and (4) encouraging the development of the private sector. Feilden (1996) distinguished the delivery and financing of nets and constructed a matrix of public, mixed or private sector delivery and public, mixed or private sector financing (for distribution, logistics, sales and services). A similar focus was taken in the Long Lasting Insecticidal Net (LLIN) business plan (MSH 2004) where the separation of delivery from financing source/mechanism was used as an aid to look at where different stakeholders participate in the mosquito net industry. Lines (1996) focused on the delivery of insecticide, distinguishing between public and private routes through which insecticides for net treatment could be delivered to users.
Delivery systems for mosquito nets and ITNs have diversified over the last two decades and there is a need to develop frameworks within which the systems are classified so that their outcomes may be compared to facilitate strategic decisions on which delivery systems are the most effective in a range of settings. The effectiveness of a delivery system may be assessed by measuring the outcome it achieves, that is, the coverage of ITNs at the household level. The objectives of this paper are to propose a categorization of ITN delivery systems; classify existing systems according to this categorization; critique coverage measures reported; synthesize evidence about the levels of coverage achieved by each system; and identify analytical gaps and future priorities.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsFindingsDiscussionEndnotesReferences |
|---|
We undertook a review of the ways in which mosquito nets and ITNs have been delivered to households, using the PubMed electronic online database (US National Library of Medicine, Bethseda, USA). Key search terms used were net, bednet, bed net, mosquito net, insecticide treated, and ITN. The reference list of each paper thus identified was searched for further relevant publications. Published papers were supplemented with grey literature where available, in acknowledgment that many evaluations of ITN programmes are not published.
We reviewed coverage outcomes achieved through each of the different systems identified by the search. In order to facilitate comparison of the coverage outcomes of different delivery systems amongst different target groups and socio-economic groups, we developed a matrix within which we present a categorization of delivery systems for ITNs. Our matrix is an adaptation of that developed by Feilden (1996) with rows representing delivery sectors (public, mixed public-private, private and community based) that are the source of logistical or human resource input into moving the ITNs from manufacturer to end user, and columns representing cost to the end user (free, partially subsidized and unsubsidized). Delivery sectors are further divided into delivery channels, which are the route through which the ITNs pass from manufacturer to end user.
Public sector is defined as largely under the control of central/local government, and private sector includes all those outside of the public sector whether their aim is philanthropic or commercial (Mills et al. 2002). Public sector delivery channels include routine health services, enhanced routine services and campaigns. Mixed delivery channels involve both public and private sector input into delivery of ITNs (logistic and/or human resource rather than purely financial input), and include voucher schemes and private-sector-assisted delivery through public sector outlets (where assistance is provided by NGOs or commercial organizations). Private sector delivery includes employer-based schemes including those supported by NGOs, ‘non-profit’ organizations facilitating delivery through commercial outlets, and the retail sector. Community-based delivery involves a heterogeneous mix of systems where the point of delivery is within the community and involves a philanthropic aim (not necessarily exclusively) through links with the public sector, NGOs or community-based organizations. In our matrix, cost to the end user can be free, partially subsidized or unsubsidized. We make the assumption that the channel through which an ITN is delivered and the cost to the end user are the major factors affecting outcomes and do not distinguish the source of the subsidy. For example, where donor money is used to assist the private sector, without public sector activities in the delivery, we classify this as unsubsidsed private sector delivery. Delivery systems were placed in this matrix based on project descriptions identified in the literature.
Coverage indicators were assessed and compared with the RBM recommended indicators. RBM recommend the use of three standard indicators of coverage: ‘the proportion of households with at least one ITN’, ‘the proportion of pregnant women who slept under an ITN the night before the survey’, and ‘the proportion of children under five years of age who slept under an ITN the night before the survey’ (Roll Back Malaria 2000; Roll Back Malaria et al. 2006). We reviewed each of the studies reflected in Table 1 for outcome data on coverage with ITNs for public and mixed delivery sectors and on mosquito nets for private sector delivery. Although several projects have begun to support delivery of ITNs through the private sector, this is relatively recent and subsequent to most available data sources (Webster et al. 2005). Where RBM indicators have been used, outcomes were placed in their relevant position within the delivery system matrix. Where RBM indicators were not used but indicators could be explained with a simple qualification, they were also included in the matrix with the relevant annotation.
|
The equity ratio was used to compare equity of coverage achieved by the different delivery systems. Households are first divided into socio-economic quintiles based upon housing conditions and ownership of a range of household assets (Filmer and Pritchett 1998
). The equity ratio is then calculated as the ratio of coverage in the poorest quintile compared with the least poor (or richest) quintile. The majority of data points available on coverage of ITNs are from household surveys undertaken following the implementation of specific programmes of delivery of ITNs. They tend to assume that the bulk of the coverage can be attributed to this specific delivery system. In our matrix we make this same assumption. However, the validity of this assumption will depend upon the history of delivery of ITNs within the area, particularly on private sector activity, and will tend to over-estimate coverage by the delivery system presented. A more important limitation is where the equity of coverage within target groups is assumed to be due to a specific delivery system. For example, a new programme may deliver ITNs in an area where coverage has previously been very inequitable. Unless baseline and post-implementation surveys are undertaken, any improvement in equity may be masked.
|
Findings |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsFindingsDiscussionEndnotesReferences |
|---|
Our literature search identified 45 records with reference to delivery systems for ITNs, from 18 countries. These included 8 references to public sector delivery, 17 to mixed, 26 to private and 4 to community-based delivery. Several of the references provided information on more than one delivery sector. Out of the 45 references identified, only 17 provided coverage data: 5 of these were on public sector delivery, 5 on mixed public-private sector, 6 on private sector and one on community-based delivery.
Categorization of delivery systems
The range of delivery systems that have been employed over the last two decades to deliver ITNs (excluding efficacy trials), as described in available published and grey literature, is presented in Table 1. We use the term ‘category’ to distinguish both the delivery sector and the cost to the end user in a 4-by-3 matrix, which is extended to a 9-by-3 matrix when delivery sector is expanded to include different delivery channels. Delivery of ITNs through routine health services has involved public-free and public-partially subsidized categories of delivery systems. Child Health Days and Child Health Weeks are a form of expanded routine activities, and involve the public-free category of delivery system. Combined delivery of ITNs with immunization campaigns has involved both public-free and public-partially subsidized categories of delivery system; however, the former has been more commonly used to date. Mixed-partially subsidized is by far the predominant delivery category within the mixed public-private sector, but there are examples of mixed-free delivery. Within the private sector, delivery of ITNs and mosquito nets involves both private-partially subsidized and private-unsubsidized categories of delivery system.
Public sector delivery channels
Routine services
Two main channels of delivery have been utilized for delivering ITNs through routine health facilities: routine clinics, such as antenatal clinics (ANC) and the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI), and intervention ‘packages’, such as the UNICEF Accelerated Child Survival and Development (ACSD) programme in West Africa. Delivery through routine health facilities has involved either full or partial subsidies to the end user. Although there are now many examples of delivery of free ITNs through ANC and to a lesser extent EPI in Africa (WHO AFRO 2005; Worrall et al. 2005; Eisele et al. 2006), documented experiences are few. In Ghana, delivery of subsidized ITNs through ANC is managed by the National Malaria Control Programme (NMCP), the Regional Health Directorates and the District Health Management Teams. The cost of the ITN to the pregnant woman is approximately US$2.20. In Eritrea, ITNs are delivered to pregnant women through ANC free of charge.
The ACSD programme involves a package of interventions termed ANC+, EPI+ and IMCI+. ACSD was originally implemented in four countries of West Africa (Benin, Ghana, Mali and Senegal) and then expanded to other countries including Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, The Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Guinea Conakry and Niger (UNICEF 2005). Strategies for delivering ITNs through ACSD vary among countries, including delivery of ITNs through routine health systems and through community-based agents. In Benin, Ghana and Senegal, the end user has to pay a small fee, for example the fee to pregnant women in Ghana is approximately US$0.50. In Mali, the ITNs are free to the end user.
Expanded routine
Child Health Days and Child Health Weeks usually involve packages of child survival interventions such as the EPI vaccinations, vitamin A supplementation and deworming tablets. ITN (re)treatment has been added to the package in some countries including Ghana, Malawi, Senegal and Zambia. In some districts of Ghana and Zambia ITNs were also delivered through Child Health Week, but less frequently than (re)treatment. All interventions are generally delivered free of charge to the end user.
Campaigns
Documentation is currently available on the combined delivery of ITNs with immunization campaigns in four countries (Ghana, Niger, Togo and Zambia), although combined campaigns have now taken place in other countries. ITNs were delivered alongside measles campaigns in Ghana, Togo and Zambia; and in Ghana and Niger, they were delivered during a polio national immunization day. Ghana was the first of the combined measles and ITN campaigns, with the activity taking place in one district (Lawra, Upper West Region) during a national measles campaign in 2002. This was followed by implementation in five districts of Zambia, four in which ITNs were delivered as a direct product and one in which the (full) subsidy was delivered in the form of a voucher. Togo provided the first example of the combined delivery of ITNs with a measles campaign at the national level. ITNs were delivered free of charge to the end user in each of the measles campaigns. During the 2004 polio national immunization days in Ghana, ITNs were delivered with vaccinations in one Region (Central Region). Unlike measles campaigns which involve vaccination at static points, polio national immunization days involve door-to-door delivery of vaccinations. In order to avoid the logistical difficulties of volunteers carrying bulky heavy ITNs, coupons were delivered to those vaccinated. The coupon entitled the holder to buy an ITN for approximately US$4 at designated health facility delivery points, thereby providing a partial subsidy (approximately US$2.20) on the ITN.
Mixed public-private sector delivery channels
In voucher schemes, the subsidy is generally delivered through the public sector, and the product delivered through the private sector. This allows targeting of the subsidy at the public sector level whilst still allowing the private sector to benefit from a sale, as well as allowing the programme to take advantage of an existing distribution system. Where the voucher has been delivered through routine health services, all subsidies have been partial, with the end user paying a top-up fee when exchanging the voucher for an ITN. However, in the Zambia pilot study where delivery was through a combined measles and ITN campaign, the ITN subsidy was delivered via a voucher which provided a 100% subsidy.
In many countries (10 including Angola, Benin, DRC, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Rwanda, Zambia and Zimbabwe), the delivery of partially subsidized ITNs through routine health facilities is supported by an NGO (Population Services International, PSI). The scale of distribution varies from one district (Angola) to national level (Malawi and Kenya) and the cost to the end user from US$0.40 in Malawi to US$2.80 in Angola. Although this model of delivery is often referred to as the ‘ANC model’ of social marketing (PSI 2005), it is quite different from classical social marketing and, in addition, ITN delivery is not limited to pregnant women through ANC services but often includes children under 5 years reached through EPI. We define this delivery channel as assisted routine services.
Private sector delivery channels
Private sector delivery of mosquito nets involves a diverse array of traders including manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers selling ITNs through a wide range of outlets (Figure 1). It was difficult to determine which part of the private sector was involved in many of the documented experiences. Classical social marketing supported by NGOs with delivery of the ITNs through retail outlets may be viewed as an ‘assisted private sector’ approach. The same applies to projects such as NetMark (NetMark 2006) where the NGO provides technical and marketing support to the private sector, and the Futures programme in Nigeria with a subsidy on promotion (Futures Group 2006). These latter projects where the subsidy is not directly applied to the product are also sometimes referred to as social marketing. Due to the diversity of approaches for delivery of ITNs that are loosely called social marketing, we use other modes of description. We define the support by NGOs to the delivery through retail outlets as ‘non-profit’ organization delivery channels. Within such channels, the ITNs are usually delivered to the retail outlets by the NGO rather than being sourced by the retailer themselves, and are subsidized (in the form of subsidized product and/or subsidized marketing and promotion) before reaching the retail outlets. Assisted private sector delivery of ITNs may involve costs covered by donors, such as technical support, marketing and distribution, even where the price of the ITN itself is not directly subsidized. Within our delivery system matrix we define subsidies as those directly applied to the ITN, and such forms of assisted private sector delivery are therefore described as unsubsidized.
|
Within the ‘non-assisted private sector’, there are two different types of delivery system defined by their delivery points. The ‘formal commercial sector’ includes static or ‘closed’ outlets such as shops, supermarkets and pharmacies where products remain in the outlets overnight, and the ‘informal commercial sector’ includes markets, kiosks and itinerant traders where products are removed from their point of delivery at the end of each trading day.
We found no examples of free nets or ITNs delivered through the private sector; though social marketing through retail outlets has involved partial subsidies on ITNs.
Community-based delivery
Most community-based distribution of ITNs has been through small-scale projects. Such projects have been implemented in many countries since the 1980s, and most have focused on a few villages or districts (Chavasse et al. 1999). Projects involving community-based delivery are heterogeneous in structure, some with governmental support such as the Ministry of Health/UNICEF supported project in Luapula Province Zambia (Dembo Rath and Hill 1998), and others with no governmental input. Some projects have delivered ITNs to the community free of charge but most have involved partial subsidies, the small charge to the end user often providing some level of incentive to the community-based volunteer or sales agent.
Coverage outcomes by delivery system
Coverage data were available for the public-free, public-partially subsidized, mixed-partially subsidized, private-partially subsidized and private-unsubsidized categories (Table 2). The country, scale and timescale of delivery of ITNs and mosquito nets through each of the delivery systems vary. The evaluation surveys are snapshots of outcomes which do not reflect changes over time, nor do they reflect the intended period of delivery, or point in the programme cycle. In Table 3 we clarify the country, duration of implementation, point in the programme cycle (completed or ongoing), the number of months after commencement or completion of the project at which the evaluation was undertaken, and scale of the programmes from which the coverage data were derived. The coverage data presented in Table 2 should be interpreted in the light of the duration of implementation presented in Table 3. Where the programme has ended, the level of coverage presented is likely to represent the highest achieved by the specific system. In the absence of an alternative system or replacement system, coverage is likely to fall subsequently. An exception to this is where there are seasonal variations in use, depending upon the time of implementation of the survey by which coverage was assessed.
|
|
There were few variations in the use of the household ownership indicator, and where present these related to presentation of the results by target group, that is households with a pregnant woman and households with a child under 5 years of age (Kikumbih et al. 2005
). Variations on the standard use indicator were found for both children under 5 years and for pregnant women. Evaluations of the measles campaigns used an indicator ‘proportion of households where the index child slept under an ITN the night before the survey’, where the index child is the youngest child in the household who was above 6 months of age at the time of the survey. This means that the denominator is households with a child meeting the age criterion rather than all children meeting the age criteria. Other variations included ‘proportion of women who slept under a net during their pregnancy’, ‘use of a net regularly’ rather than the night before the survey, and ‘proportion of children under 5 who slept in a bed with a net hanging over it’. Overall, surprisingly few data points were available, despite allowing the inclusion of non-standard indicators. Public sector delivery of free ITNs (public-free)
Household ITN ownership data were available only from routine health facility delivery in Eritrea and from the measles campaigns in three countries. Ownership was 82.2% in Eritrea (Eisele et al. 2006), and through the measles campaigns varied from 62.5% at the national level in Togo (CDC 2005) to 94.4% in one district of Ghana (Grabowsky et al. 2005b). On use by target groups, a greater number of data points were available. Use by pregnant women varied from 35.8% at the national level through the Togo measles campaign1 to 84% in high transmission areas across 35 districts of Kenya where ITNs were delivered through routine health facilities (Guyatt et al. 2002a). Use by children under 5 years varied from 43.5% through the national level measles campaign in Togo to 76.1% through routine health facility delivery across two zobas of Eritrea (Eisele et al. 2006). Amongst these examples of free public sector delivery, only the programmes in Eritrea and Mali are ongoing; the other examples from Kenya, Ghana, Togo and Zambia were all short-term delivery models (several months for Kenya, and several days for Ghana, Togo and Zambia). Coverage in the campaign categories of delivery was evaluated 1 to 6 months after completion of the campaign, and 12 to 18 months after commencement of delivery in the routine delivery category examples.
Public sector delivery of partially subsidized ITNs (public-partially subsidized)
Outcome data on public-partially subsidized delivery of ITNs was available only for intervention packages of the ACSD programme. These programmes did not assess household ownership. Use by pregnant women and children under 5 years varied from 26.0 and 21.0%, respectively, through an intervention package in six districts of Ghana (UNICEF 2005), to 47.3 and 69.2%, respectively, through a similar intervention package system in two districts of Senegal (UNICEF 2005). These data represent findings 2–3 years post-commencement of the ACSD programmes, which are still ongoing.
Mixed delivery of partially subsidized ITNs (mixed-partially subsidized)
Where the delivery system involved both public and private sectors, household ownership varied from 42.9% through social marketing at the national level in Malawi (Kadzandira and Munthali 2004) to 73% through a mixture of social marketing and a voucher scheme in two districts of Tanzania (Schellenberg et al. 1999); use by pregnant women varied from 24.5 to 50.0% in the two districts in which a voucher scheme was implemented in Tanzania (Hanson et al. 2005a), and 53% through a mixed voucher and retail sector social marketing programme in two districts of Tanzania (Marchant et al. 2002). Use by children under 5 years varied from 12.2 to 27.9% through a voucher system in two districts of Tanzania (Mushi et al. 2003). The surveys assessing coverage through these mixed-partially subsidized delivery models were undertaken approximately 1–2 years post-commencement of delivery at the stated scale. With national scale public-private delivery of ITNs through routine health facilities, there is a marked disparity across districts in household ownership of nets in Malawi, ranging from 26.1 to 87.5% (Kadzandira and Munthali 2004).
Private sector delivery of partially subsidized ITNs (private-partially subsidized)
Available data showed household ownership of 19.9% through retail sector social marketing in one district of Malawi (Holtz et al. 2002) in a survey undertaken just over a year post-commencement of the project. We found no data on use by pregnant women of ITNs delivered through retail sector social marketing or other private sector delivery systems involving partial subsidies. Use by children under 5 years through this same category of delivery system varied from 3.3% in a rural area of one district of Malawi (Holtz et al. 2002) to 24% in an urban area of the same district.
Private sector delivery of unsubsidized nets (private-unsubsidized)
Ownership of unsubsidized nets reaching households through the unassisted private sector, where formal and informal distinctions were not made, varied between 49% in one province of Burkina Faso (Okrah et al. 2002) and 32% in one district of Tanzania (Kikumbih et al. 2005). We found no data within this category on use by pregnant women; use by children in four districts of Kenya was 2.7% (Noor et al. 2006). Use of nets delivered through the informal commercial sector was 67.2% for pregnant women and 67.7% for children under 5 years of age at the national level in The Gambia (D’Alessandro et al. 1994).
Community-based delivery
Most community-based delivery is conducted on a small scale and is not evaluated, or if evaluated the results are not published and not widely circulated; therefore data are not available on the coverage outcomes achieved through the variety of systems within this category. We were able to access data from one district of Zambia only, where household ownership of nets was 50%, use by pregnant women 46% and use by children under 5 years 33% (Dembo Rath and Hill 1998). Although (re)treatment rates were assessed in the household survey from which these data were obtained, data on ownership and use of ITNs was not presented.
Cost to the end user
It is clear from our matrix (Table 2) that there are very few examples of delivery through specific delivery systems with different levels of subsidy and subsequent costs to the end user. We did not identify any examples of studies that could determine the impact of varying cost to the end user on coverage of nets or ITNs.
Activities at a national scale
In Table 2 we highlight three sets of data where delivery is at the national level. These include public delivery of free nets (free delivery of ITNs through measles campaigns), mixed delivery of partially subsidized nets (through routine health facilities) and private delivery of unsubsidized nets (informal commercial sector). Household ownership of ITNs varies from 42.9% for mixed delivery supported by PSI through routine health facilities with partial subsidies in Malawi (Kadzandira and Munthali 2004), to 62.5% for public sector measles campaigns where ITNs are free to the end user in Togo (CDC 2005). The mixed-delivery model in Malawi had only recently scaled-up at the time of the survey and there is scope for increasing household ownership over time through this model. Conversely, there is no scope for increasing the level of household ownership achieved through a one-off distribution such as the measles campaign in Togo, and ownership will therefore decrease over time as the nets wear out. Maintenance of ownership levels achieved by a campaign would require a complementary system of delivery through other consistent means.
Use by pregnant women and children under 5 years is highest for nets delivered unsubsidized through the informal commercial sector, at 67.2 and 67.7% respectively, in The Gambia (D’Alessandro et al. 1994), and lowest for ITNs delivered through assisted routine health facilities with partial subsidy, at 31.4 and 35.5% respectively, in Malawi (Kadzandira and Munthali 2004). Data in Table 2 which have not been highlighted are from sub-national surveys varying from one city to several districts. The informal commercial sector in The Gambia has been delivering nets to the population for many years, and is likely therefore to have reached its full potential in the absence of any interventions to increase demand.
Equity of coverage by delivery system
We identified seven data sources where it was possible to calculate an equity ratio of coverage amongst the lowest and highest socio-economic quintiles (Table 3). Three of these assessed the equity ratio of household ownership of ITNs in households with a child targeted by a measles campaign, one the equity ratio of use by children under 5 years, one of pregnant women, and the remainder were based on non-standard indicators. The findings cannot, therefore, be directly compared. However, based on non-standard indicators the measles campaigns have achieved equitable coverage, even in rural areas [equity ratio: 0.92 in one district of Ghana (Grabowsky et al. 2005b); 1.19 (urban), 0.88 (rural) in five districts of Zambia (Grabowsky et al. 2005a); and 1.02 at the national level in Togo (CDC 2005)]. Household ownership at the national level through public-private delivery of ITNs in health facilities in Malawi was classified by wealthiest, medium and poorest socio-economic groups, rather than by socio-economic quintiles. Ownership in the wealthiest households was nearly three times that in the poorest (Kadzandira and Munthali 2004). Using the few data points available, coverage achieved through mixed delivery systems with partial subsidies, that is social marketing and voucher schemes, has generally been quite inequitable, varying from 0.11 for use by children under 5 years via a voucher scheme in two districts of Tanzania (Hanson et al. 2005a), to 0.6 for a scheme involving both social marketing and vouchers in two districts of Tanzania (Nathan et al. 2004). However, it is unclear whether these schemes have increased or decreased any previously existing inequity of coverage. Equity of coverage is likely to vary considerably according to the point in time and average level of coverage at which it is measured.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsFindingsDiscussionEndnotesReferences |
|---|
In order to go to scale with ITNs, an evidence-based understanding of the most effective delivery systems is needed. Although delivery systems for ITNs have been debated over the last few years, most of the debates have focused on: (a) whether delivery should be free or subsidized, and (b) the necessity of involving the private sector (Curtis et al. 2003
; Lines et al. 2003). The evidence used in these debates has been limited to data from small-scale research projects and therefore does not necessarily reflect what could be expected from large-scale programmes. Rigorous methodological approaches are used to evaluate the effectiveness of ITNs and other preventative interventions for malaria control. Since the effectiveness of the delivery system will increase or decrease the effectiveness of the intervention, similarly structured approaches using rigorous methodologies are also needed to assess the effectiveness of these different delivery systems. Our approach to developing a structured methodology to determine the effectiveness of the various delivery systems involves: (1) defining and describing the categories of delivery system, (2) development of a matrix in which outcomes may be recorded and comparisons made between these categories at periodic intervals, thereby providing an analytical tool for focusing on changes over time, and (3) assessment of the evidence base for achievements of each delivery system to date.
The current emphasis on scaling-up delivery has shifted the focus from small-scale projects to national-level systems. Delivery of ITNs has been reported to have taken place ‘at a national level’ in at least five countries of sub-Saharan Africa. Two of these involve public sector delivery, through routine health facilities in Eritrea (with some delivery also taking place to high-risk communities and the military), and through a combined measles and ITN campaign in Togo. The other three experiences involve mixed public-private sector delivery, in Kenya and Malawi through routine health facilities with the support of a ‘non-profit’ NGO, and in Tanzania through a voucher scheme where the subsidy is delivered through routine health facilities and the product through the private retail sector. ITNs are free to the end user through public sector delivery in both Eritrea and Togo, and involve partial subsidies through mixed delivery in Kenya, Malawi and Tanzania. The number of countries in which there is ‘national level’ unassisted private sector delivery of nets through either the formal or informal private sector is unclear. Our review suggests that The Gambia is one such country and the relatively high coverage of never-treated nets in Guinea Bissau (59% use by children under 5) (Webster et al. 2005) would suggest that this is another. Malawi and Togo were the only two of these countries where we were able to access national-level data for all three RBM coverage indicators. Available data for Eritrea were from two zobas only, for Kenya on household ownership only, and for Tanzania data were not yet available as national-scale delivery has only very recently been achieved (May 2006).
We need to define delivery ‘at the national level’ within the context of the different categories of delivery system, as well as malaria epidemiology. Where delivery is through the public sector or via mixed systems, should ‘national-level delivery’ be defined as delivery of ITNs (or ITN subsidies) in every district? Or should we have a district-level target with delivery through a certain proportion of facilities? How do we define national-level delivery through the private sector? These questions need to be answered bearing in mind that malaria epidemiology varies across districts of endemic countries, with not all districts being endemic.
As more programmes scale-up, the geographic disparities across countries will certainly need to be addressed, as in the case of Malawi described above. There are lessons to learn from EPI, which, in recognition of district-level disparities in coverage, now has a target of 90% national coverage (with three doses of DPT in children 1 year of age), with at least 80% coverage in all districts (UN General Assembly Special Session on Children, May 2002). As more countries scale-up delivery of ITNs, such targets would be useful in order to both assess and address geographic inequities.
Our review of the literature has outlined three areas relating to delivery of ITNs where clarity is needed, or diversity recognized. The first relates to a general lack of clarity in the description of delivery channels, particularly in the use of the term social marketing. We therefore recommend that social marketing is replaced by a more specific description of the delivery channels, as represented in our matrix. For example, in the existing literature social marketing is variously used to describe: the mixed public-private sector delivery of ITNs through routine health facilities with partial subsidies, private sector delivery through retail outlets with partial subsidies on the ITNs, and assisted private sector delivery where the ITNs per se are unsubsidized, but marketing, promotion or technical support are given. A further example of lack of distinction is where ‘non-profit’ organization and retail sector delivery channels use retail outlets as their delivery point. These are two distinct types of delivery system (see Figure 1). In ‘non-profit’ organization channels, the ITNs are generally ‘pushed’ to a retailer and sold at a subsidized price determined by the organization. Private sector delivery involves a ‘pull’ on a wholesaler or other supplier from the retailer in response to an identified demand (a pull from consumers), and prices will vary according to market forces. ‘Non-profit’ organization delivery through retail outlets is dependent upon donor money for the subsidy (either for the ITN itself, promotion or pushed distribution) and the programme infrastructure. Unassisted private sector delivery is independent of donor and other public sector input.
Our review suggests that after distinguishing private sector delivery from assisted private sector delivery by ‘non-profit’ organizations of ITNs through retail outlets, further distinctions should be made within the private sector. The coverage and the equity of coverage achieved through formal and informal delivery outlets varies enormously, with the informal commercial sector being particularly successful in countries of West Africa (NetMark 2001a-e; NetMark 2003; NetMark 2004a-e). In much of West Africa there has been a tradition of using mosquito nets for many years, the majority of which have been supplied through markets (MacCormack et al. 1989). These nets are made from a variety of materials and the reasons for using them and the preferences for the different fabrics vary accordingly (Panter-Brick et al. 2006). There is a lack of evidence on whether the bias towards the poorest households of nets delivered through the informal sector is due to the delivery points, that is markets rather than supermarkets and pharmacies, or whether it is due to the type and/or cost of the ‘local nets’. Delivery of a range of ITNs through the informal sector, thereby increasing choice, may help to answer this question.
The second area requiring clarification is the objectives of voucher schemes. The objective of a voucher scheme is to provide targeted subsidies through the public sector whilst delivering the product through the private sector, thereby promoting private sector growth, and ultimately its sustainability. The retailers involved in the scheme therefore exchange a voucher for an ITN, usually with the addition of a top-up fee; this transaction represents a public-private partnership in delivery. Voucher schemes also aim to facilitate a general increase in availability such that those not targeted by subsidies may also buy ITNs at full commercial price, which would involve a purely private sector transaction. These schemes should be distinguished from delivery which involves a ‘paper’ subsidy through the public sector where the product is also delivered through the public sector. An example is the combined polio national immunization day and ITN distribution in Central Region Ghana, where coupons were given to the caretakers of children under 5 years of age. This coupon entitled the bearer to buy a subsidized ITN at a pre-determined number of sites which were mainly health facilities. The coupon was used simply as a method of delivering the right to a subsidy, and of avoiding logistical problems of transport of ITNs by immunization volunteers.
The third issue concerns timing. There are at least four dimensions of timing which are relevant: duration of delivery, intended duration of delivery (that is, programme objectives and timeframe), changes in the nature of the programme over time, and seasonality in coverage and time of its measurement. Timing may therefore impact on coverage outcomes achieved, coverage outcomes measured, and should be considered in the interpretation of relative achievements. Delivery of ITNs through integration with immunization campaigns provides a ‘quick fix’ or ‘catch-up’ solution to scaling-up coverage. The maximum level of household ownership is achieved within the few days of the campaign. Where no other system is in place to ‘keep-up’ this coverage, then ownership is transient and will fall as the ITNs wear out. Delivery of ITNs/nets through routine systems (public and/or private) may also be used to ‘catch-up’ coverage, but the pace is slower. These systems, however, are also designed to ‘keep-up’ coverage. In order to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two systems, they should be mapped over a period of at least 3–5 years. These issues of timing should be addressed directly when results are reported, so that there is an explicit statement of the time elapsed between the commencement of delivery, intended period of delivery and the point at which coverage is measured.
Programmes can also change over time, suggesting that they may move between cells in the matrix, which is why the proposed tool/framework should be used repeatedly at suitable periodic intervals. Finally, use of ITNs/nets is seasonal and therefore the coverage measured is highly influenced by the season in which the survey is undertaken. This should be taken into account in interpreting the outcomes of delivery systems as measured through cross-sectional surveys such as the Demographic and Health Surveys.
Using the categories we defined, we found some intra-category variations and some inter-category overlaps. All examples of intervention packages were from the UNICEF ACSD programmes in West Africa. These generally involve delivery through routine health facilities, but sometimes this occurs via community agents either in the facilities, as in Upper East Region of Ghana, or within the communities. This is therefore a combination of two types of delivery, routine health systems and community-based. The KINET programme in Tanzania was primarily a social marketing programme, but also introduced the delivery of discount vouchers for ITNs delivered to pregnant women through ANC.
Although RBM has recommended three outcome indicators for ITN programmes, these are often not used or are modified so that direct comparisons across programmes and countries are not possible. ‘Coverage’ is a term which is loosely used, such that it is often difficult to interpret. Coverage is variably used to refer to household ownership, use by pregnant women or use by children under 5 years of age. We recommend that coverage of ITNs and nets is always qualified as either household ownership, or use by a specific target group.
The data points included in our review are taken mainly from post-delivery household surveys undertaken by programmes using a specific category of ITN delivery. The assumption has been that the contribution of ITNs delivered through other systems to this coverage has been negligible. We found only one example of a direct comparison of coverage outcomes from specific delivery systems, which was that of Kikumbih et al. (2005) in Tanzania, who compared coverage achieved in one district through both social marketing of ITNs and commercial sector activity with that of coverage in another district using commercial sector delivery only. Methods are needed such that coverage achieved at the household level (ownership and use by target groups) collected in household surveys may be attributed to specific delivery systems. NetMark surveys focus on the source of nets (proportion of nets/ITNs in households that came from each source). A further step of linking this data to target groups would allow the assessment of the three RBM coverage indicators by delivery system. Inclusion of these methods in the Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys would allow collection and collation of the urgently needed data to compare the effectiveness of different delivery systems for ITNs within a range of contexts.
We focused within our review on two outcomes: effectiveness and equity. Other outcomes include cost-effectiveness and sustainability. A review of cost and cost-effectiveness studies on ITNs has recently been undertaken, which has emphasized the diversity of methods used (Kolaczinski and Hanson 2006). Sustainability has not been addressed. Within our review we compare the transient nature of coverage through campaign-style delivery with the ongoing routine delivery through public and/or private sectors. A wider review of sustainability is beyond the scope of this review and, indeed, is not possible with existing published data sources which tend to report coverage achieved at a single point in time.
Our review has outlined the diversity of delivery systems for ITNs and the weakness of the evidence base currently available to aid in strategic decision making for national scale-up with the increased funding now available to countries. Where data are available, ITNs have been delivered by programmes which have been implemented at a variety of scales, in different countries and over different time periods, making it impossible to draw clear conclusions as to their relative merits. There are no comparative studies from which definitive evidence can be drawn in the way that there are randomized control trials for the efficacy of interventions such as ITNs.
The response to the debates on whether delivery should be free or subsidized and on the necessity for involving the private sector will be different depending upon the country of focus and upon the context of ITN delivery systems used within that country. Even in countries where delivery is ‘at the national scale’, it is clear that geographical access is not universal and therefore it is impossible to draw conclusions on the impact of cost. The variation in impact of another large-scale intervention, the Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI), between different contexts has recently been shown across five countries (Victora et al. 2005). Research is needed on the contextual factors which either enable or act as barriers to the delivery of ITNs through various categories of delivery systems currently used. Our matrix presents an analytical framework within which this can be conducted. We may then be able to ascertain under what circumstances free, partially subsidized or unsubsidized ITNs are necessary/most appropriate, and whether and under what circumstances the private sector may make important contributions to ensuring that children under 5 years and pregnant women are protected from malaria by ITNs.
A comprehensive mapping of systems and outcomes is needed, incorporating an analysis of the influence of context, with a view to providing evidence to guide strategic decision making. Currently, even basic information about household ownership and use by target groups is lacking, thereby severely restricting our ability to make evidence-based decisions about the most effective delivery systems for any given context.
|
Endnotes |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsFindingsDiscussionEndnotesReferences |
|---|
1 Pregnant women are not a target group of the measles campaigns, which generally target children 9–59 months of age, but may sometimes include children of 9 months to 15 years depending upon measles epidemiology.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsFindingsDiscussionEndnotesReferences |
|---|
Abdulla S, Schellenberg JA, Nathan R, et al. Impact on malaria morbidity of a programme supplying insecticide treated nets in children aged under 2 years in Tanzania: community cross sectional study. British Medical Journal (2001) 322:270–3.
Aikins MK, Pickering H, Alonso PL, et al. A malaria control trial using insecticide-treated bed nets and targeted chemoprophylaxis in a rural area of The Gambia, West Africa. 4. Perceptions of the causes of malaria and of its treatment and prevention in the study area. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (1993) 87(Suppl. 2):25–30.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Binka FN, Kubaje A, Adjuik M, et al. Impact of permethrin impregnated bednets on child mortality in Kassena-Nankana district, Ghana: a randomized controlled trial. Tropical Medicine and International Health (1996) 1:147–54.
CARE. Insecticide Treated Nets (ITNs) Discount Voucher Scheme Pilot in Kibaha District. In: Implementation report (2003) Dar es Salaam: CARE. June-December 2003.
CDC. Distribution of insecticide-treated bednets during an integrated nationwide immunization campaign–Togo, West Africa, December 2004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (2005) 54:994–6.
Chavasse D, Reed C, Attawell K. Insecticide treated net projects: a handbook for managers (1999) London and Liverpool: Malaria Consortium.
Clarke SE, Bogh C, Brown RC, et al. Do untreated bednets protect against malaria? Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (2001) 95:457–62.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Curtis C, Maxwell C, Lemnge M, et al. Scaling-up coverage with insecticide-treated nets against malaria in Africa: who should pay? The Lancet Infectious Diseases (2003) 3:304–7.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
D’Alessandro U, Aikins MK, Langerock P, et al. Nationwide survey of bednet use in rural Gambia. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation (1994) 72:391–4.
D’Alessandro U, Olaleye BO, McGuire W, et al. Mortality and morbidity from malaria in Gambian children after introduction of an impregnated bednet programme. The Lancet (1995a) 345:479–83.
D’Alessandro U, Olaleye BO, McGuire W, et al. A comparison of the efficacy of insecticide-treated and untreated bed nets in preventing malaria in Gambian children. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (1995b) 89:596–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
D’Alessandro U, Olaleye B, Langerock P, et al. The Gambian National Impregnated Bed Net Programme: evaluation of effectiveness by means of case-control studies. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (1997) 91:638–42.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Dembo Rath A, Hill J. Evaluation of the comunity-based malaria control project in Samfya District, Luapula Province, Zambia. (1998) London and Liverpool: Malaria Consortium.
Desfontaine M, Gelas H, Cabon H, et al. [Evaluation of practice and costs of vector control on a family level in Central Africa. II. Douala City (Cameroon), July 1988]. Annales de la Société Belge de Médicine Tropicale (1990) 70:137–44.
Eisele TP, Macintyre K, Yukich J, et al. Interpreting household survey data intended to measure insecticide-treated bednet coverage: results from two surveys in Eritrea. Malaria Journal (2006) 5:36.[CrossRef][Medline]
Feilden R. Experiences of implementation. In: Net Gain: a new method for preventing malaria deaths—Lengeler C, Cattani J, De Savigny D, eds. (1996) Ottawa: IDRC and WHO.
Filmer D, Pritchett L. Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data – or tears: Educational enrolment in India. Development Economics Research Group (1998) Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Futures Group. Nigeria: Insecticide-Treated Malaria Bed Net Project. (2006) Online at: http://www.constellafutures.com/Projects.cfm?area=43.
Goodman CA, Coleman PG, Mills AJ. Cost-effectiveness of malaria control in sub-Saharan Africa. The Lancet (1999) 354:378–85.
Grabowsky M, Farrell N, Hawley W, et al. Integrating insecticide-treated bednets into a measles vaccination campaign achieves high, rapid and equitable coverage with direct and voucher-based methods. Tropical Medicine and International Health (2005a) 10:1151–60.[CrossRef]
Grabowsky M, Nobiya T, Ahun M, et al. Distributing insecticide-treated bednets during measles vaccination: a low-cost means of achieving high and equitable coverage. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation (2005b) 83:195–201.
GSMF. Public-commercial partnerships for the sustainable marketing of insecticide treated materials (ITMs) in Ghana. In: Project final report. (2003) Accra: Ghana Social Marketing Foundation.
Guyatt H, Ochola S. Use of bednets given free to pregnant women in Kenya. The Lancet (2003) 362:1549–50.
Guyatt HL, Snow RW, Ochola SA. An evaluation of the distribution of free insecticide-treated nets to pregnant women in Kenya between April and July 2001. In: Report prepared for UNICEF, Ministry of Health and Development Partners, August 2001 (2001).
Guyatt HL, Gotink MH, Ochola SA, et al. Free bednets to pregnant women through antenatal clinics in Kenya: a cheap, simple and equitable approach to delivery. Tropical Medicine and International Health (2002a) 7:409–20.[CrossRef]
Guyatt HL, Ochola SA, Snow RW. Too poor to pay: charging for insecticide-treated bednets in highland Kenya. Tropical Medicine and International Health (2002b) 7:846–50.[CrossRef]
Guyatt HL, Noor AM, Ochola SA, et al. Use of intermittent presumptive treatment and insecticide treated bed nets by pregnant women in four Kenyan districts. Tropical Medicine and International Health (2004) 9:255–61.[CrossRef]
Habluetzel A, Diallo DA, Esposito F, et al. Do insecticide-treated curtains reduce all-cause child mortality in Burkina Faso? Tropical Medicine and International Health (1997) 2:855–62.[CrossRef]
Habluetzel A, Cuzin N, Diallo DA, et al. Insecticide-treated curtains reduce the prevalence and intensity of malaria infection in Burkina Faso. Tropical Medicine and International Health (1999) 4:557–64.[CrossRef]
Hamel MJ, Odhacha A, Roberts JM, et al. Malaria control in Bungoma District, Kenya: a survey of home treatment of children with fever, bednet use and attendance at antenatal clinics. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation (2001) 79:1014–23.
Hanson K, Worrall E. Social Marketing of Insecticide Treated Nets – Phase 2 (SMITN2), Tanzania: End-of-project Household Survey Analysis. In: Technical assistance to PSI Tanzania. Final report. (2002) London and Liverpool: Malaria Consortium.
Hanson K, Goodman C, Lines J, et al. The economics of malaria control interventions (2004) Geneva: Global Forum for Health Research.
Hanson K, Gordon G, Stephen G. Draft report of household survey – Kilosa and Kibaha districts. (2005a) London: LSHTM, IDRC.
Hanson K, Mtawa E, Worrall E, et al. Report of voucher tracking study – Kilosa and Kibaha districts. (2005b) London: LSHTM, IDRC.
Hill J, Lines J, Rowland M. Insecticide-treated nets. Advanced Parasitology (2006) 61:77–128.
Holtz TH, Marum LH, Mkandala C, et al. Insecticide-treated bednet use, anaemia, and malaria parasitaemia in Blantyre District, Malawi. Tropical Medicine and International Health (2002) 7:220–30.[CrossRef]
Kadzandira JM, Munthali AC. The coverage and utilisation of insecticide treated nets and malaria prevention and treatment practices at the community level in Malawi. (2004) Lilongwe: Government of Malawi, National Malaria Control Programme, Ministry of Health and Population.
Kikumbih N, Hanson K, Mills A, et al. The economics of social marketing: the case of mosquito nets in Tanzania. Social Science and Medicine (2005) 60:369–81.[CrossRef]
Killian A. Uganda ITN Voucher Scheme Pilot Project. In: Analysis of data. (2004) Kampala: SAID/CDC.
Kolaczinski JH, Hanson K. Costing the distribution of insecticide-treated nets: a review of cost and cost-effectiveness studies to provide guidance on standardization of costing methodology. Malaria Journal (2006) 5:37.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kweku M, Webster J, Dedzo M, Volta Regional Health Directorate Research Team. ITN voucher scheme pilot project in Volta Region, Ghana: Round 3 monitoring (12 months post implementation). (2005) Accra: Ministry of Health, Ghana.
Lengeler C. Insecticide treated bednets and curtains for malaria control (Cochrane Review) The Cochrane Library. (1998) (Issue 3). Oxford: Update Software.
Lengeler C. Insecticide-treated nets for malaria control: real gains. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation (2004) 82:84.
Lines J. Review: mosquito nets and insecticides for net treatment: a discussion of existing and potential distribution systems in Africa. Tropical Medicine and International Health (1996) 1:616–32.
Lines J, Webster J. Support to the ITN Partnership in Ghana. (2003) London and Liverpool: Malaria Consortium for DFID Ghana.
Lines J, Lengeler C, Cham K, et al. Scaling-up and sustaining insecticide-treated net coverage. The Lancet Infectious Diseases (2003) 3:465–6. discussion 467–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Loewenberg S. Niger welcomes largest bednet distribution in history. The Lancet (2006) 367:1473.
MacCormack CP, Snow RW, Greenwood BM. Use of insecticide-impregnated bed nets in Gambian primary health care: economic aspects. Bulletin of the World Health Organization (1989) 57:209–214.
Magesa SM, Lengeler C, Desavigny D, et al. Creating an "enabling environment" for taking insecticide treated nets to national scale: the Tanzanian experience. Malaria Journal (2005) 4:34.[CrossRef][Medline]
Marchant T, Schellenberg JA, Edgar T, et al. Socially marketed insecticide-treated nets improve malaria and anaemia in pregnancy in southern Tanzania. Tropical Medicine and International Health (2002) 7:149–58.[CrossRef]
Maxwell CA, Msuya E, Sudi M, et al. Effect of community-wide use of insecticide-treated nets for 3–4 years on malarial morbidity in Tanzania. Tropical Medicine and International Health (2002) 7:1003–8.[CrossRef]
Mills A, Brugha R, Hanson K, et al. What can be done about the private health sector in low-income countries? Bulletin of the World Health Organisation (2002) 80:325–30.
MSH. Draft strategic plan for stimulating the development, manufacturing and widespread distribution of long-lasting insecticidal nets. (2004) Cambridge, MA: Management Sciences for Health.
Mushi AK, Schellenberg JR, Mponda H, et al. Targeted subsidy for malaria control with treated nets using a discount voucher system in Tanzania. Health Policy and Planning (2003) 18:163–71.
Nachbar N. Senegal PNLP/UNICEF/NETMARK Targeted Subsidy Pilot Program for Insecticide Treated Nets, 2003: Report on Findings and Recommendations. (2004) NetMark.
Nathan R, Masanja H, Mshinda H, et al. Mosquito nets and the poor: can social marketing redress inequities in access? Tropical Medicine and International Health (2004) 9:1121–6.[CrossRef]
NetMark. Baseline survey on insecticide treated materials (ITMs) in Mozambique. (2001a) Online at: http://www.netmarkafrica.org.
NetMark. Baseline survey on insecticide treated materials (ITMs) in Nigeria. (2001b) Online at: http://www.netmarkafrica.org.
NetMark. Baseline survey on insecticide treated materials (ITMs) in Senegal. (2001c) Online at: http://www.netmarkafrica.org.
NetMark. Baseline survey on insecticide treated materials in Uganda. (2001d) Online at: http://www.netmarkafrica.org.
NetMark. Baseline survey on insecticide treated materials in Zambia. (2001e) Online at: http://www.netmarkafrica.org.
NetMark. Baseline survey on insecticide treated materials (ITMs) in Mali. (2003) Online at: http://www.netmarkafrica.org.
NetMark. NetMark 2004 survey on insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) in Ethiopia. (2004a) Online at: http://www.netmarkafrica.org.
NetMark. NetMark 2004 survey on insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) in Ghana. (2004b) Online at: http://www.netmarkafrica.org.
NetMark. NetMark 2004 survey on insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) in Zambia. (2004c) Online at: http://www.netmarkafrica.org.
NetMark. NetMark 2004 survey on insecticide-treated nets in Nigeria. (2004d) Online at: http://www.netmarkafrica.org.
NetMark. NetMark 2004 survey on insecticide treated nets (ITNs) in Senegal. (2004e) Online at: http://www.netmarkafrica.org.
NetMark. Quantitative research. (2006) Online at: http://www.netmarkafrica.org.
Nevill CG, Some ES, Mung’ala VO, et al. Insecticide-treated bednets reduce mortality and severe morbidity from malaria among children on the Kenyan coast. Tropical Medicine and International Health (1996) 1:139–46.
Ngugi IK, Chiguzo AN, Guyatt HL. A cost analysis of the employer-based bednet programme in Coastal and Western Kenya. Health Policy and Planning (2004) 19:111–9.
Noor AM, Omumbo JA, Amin AA, et al. Wealth, mother's education and physical access as determinants of retail sector net use in rural Kenya. Malaria Journal (2006) 5:5.[CrossRef][Medline]
Nuwaha F. Factors influencing the use of bed nets in Mbarara municipality of Uganda. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (2001) 65:877–82.[Abstract]
Okrah J, Traore C, Pale A, et al. Community factors associated with malaria prevention by mosquito nets: an exploratory study in rural Burkina Faso. Tropical Medicine and International Health (2002) 7:240–8.[CrossRef]
Panter-Brick C, Clarke SE, Lomas H, et al. Culturally compelling strategies for behaviour change: A social ecology model and case study in malaria prevention. Social Science and Medicine (2006) 62:2810–25.[CrossRef]
PSI. Country Brief: The Malawi ITN Delivery Model. (2005) Washington, DC: Population Services International.
PSI. PSI Newsletter: Mosquito net coverage of vulnerable groups reaches 50% in Kenya. (2006) Nairobi: Population Services International.
Rhee M, Sissoko M, Perry S, et al. Use of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) following a malaria education intervention in Piron, Mali: a control trial with systematic allocation of households. Malaria Journal (2005) 4:35.[CrossRef][Medline]
Roll Back Malaria. Framework for monitoring progress and evaluating outcomes and impact. In: Document WHO/CDS/RBM/2000.25. (2000) Geneva: World Health Organization.
Roll Back Malaria, MEASURE Evaluation, World Health Organisation, UNICEF. Guidelines for core population coverage indicators for Roll Back Malaria: to be obtained from household surveys. (2006) Calverton, MD: MEASURE Evaluation.
Rowland M, Hewitt S, Durrani N, et al. Sustainability of pyrethroid-impregnated bednets for malaria control in Afghan communities. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation (1997) 75:23–9.
Schellenberg JR, Abdulla S, Minja H, et al. KINET: a social marketing programme of treated nets and net treatment for malaria control in Tanzania, with evaluation of child health and long-term survival. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (1999) 93:225–31.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
UNICEF. Accelerating child survival and development. A results-based approach in high under-5 mortality areas. In: Final report to CIDA (2005) New York: UNICEF.
Victora CG, Hanson K, Bryce J, et al. Achieving universal coverage with health interventions. The Lancet (2004) 364:1541–8.
Victora CG, Schellenberg JA, Huicho L, et al. Context matters: interpreting impact findings in child survival evaluations. Health Policy and Planning (2005) 20(Suppl. 1):i18–i31.[Abstract]
Webster J, Lines J, Bruce J, et al. Which delivery systems reach the poor? A review of the equity of coverage of ever-treated nets, never-treated nets, and immunisation to reduce child mortality in Africa. The Lancet Infectious Diseases (2005) 5:709–17.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
WHO. Scaling-up insecticide treated netting programmes in Africa: a strategic framework for co-ordinated national action (2002) Geneva: World Health Organisation.
WHO. World Malaria Report 2005. (2005) Geneva: World Health Organisation.
WHO AFRO. Country profile: Existing policies, distribution systems and current/future plans for scaling up of ITNs. In: Draft Report. (2005) Brazzaville, Congo: WHO Regional Office for Africa.
WHO Ghana. Experiences from combined ITN distribution and house-to house polio NID in the Central Region of Ghana. (2006) Accra: WHO Ghana.
World Vision. Kilosa ITN Voucher Pilot Project. In: Project Progress Report as from July to September, 2003. (2003) Dar es Salaam: World Vision.
Worrall E, Hill J, Webster J, et al. Experience of targeting subsidies on insecticide-treated nets: what do we know and what are the knowledge gaps? Tropical Medicine and International Health (2005) 10:19–31.[CrossRef]
Accepted for publication 2 April 2007.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. P Eisele and R. W Steketee Distribution of insecticide treated nets in rural Africa BMJ, July 2, 2009; 339(jul02_1): b1598 - b1598. [Full Text]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||