The cost and cost-effectiveness of malaria vector control by residual insecticide house-spraying in southern Mozambique: a rural and urban analysis
The cost and cost-effectiveness of malaria vector control by residual insecticide house-spraying in southern Mozambique: a rural and urban analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1046/j.1365-3156.2003.01150.x
复制
发表时间：
2004-01-01
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Konar, S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Conteh, L;Sharp, BL;Konar, S
比较两个单独资助的，但操作相似，残留的家庭喷洒（RHS）的倡议，一个农村和一个城市周边在南部Mozambique.METHODS农村计划是一个区域项目，涉及参与和协调的组织在南部非洲的三个国家，并侧重于控制在莫桑比克的一个地区的7552公里（2）。第二个方案的重点是在MOZAL周围10公里半径范围内的城郊社区喷洒，MOZAL是一个面积为410公里的铝冶炼厂（2）。成分的方法被用来获得单位成本为农村和城郊喷洒方案使用详细的追溯成本数据和effectiveness indicators.Results的经济成本，每人每年覆盖使用氨基甲酸酯室内滞留喷洒（IRS）在农村地区，不包括项目管理和监测和监督的费用为3.48美元，在城郊地区，2.16美元。农村地区和城市周边地区每人每年的财政费用分别为3.86美元和2.41美元。当包括项目管理和监测和监督时，所覆盖的人均经济成本分别增加了39%和31%。提供生殖健康服务的成本背后的主要驱动力有两个方面：覆盖的人口和使用的杀虫剂。计算的经济和财务成本为所有四个杀虫剂家庭可用于RHS.CONCLUSIONS从这两个举措，特别是农村地区的结果，应被解释为保守的成本估计，因为它们排除了额外的健康收益，新推出的方案已在南非和斯威士兰的邻近地区的疟疾发病率。这两项举措都表明，采用室内滞留喷雾杀虫剂方案可以减少与疟疾有关的痛苦，只要有财政支持、政治意愿、协作管理和培训以及社区参与。
OBJECTIVES To compare two separately funded, but operationally similar, residual household-spraying (RHS) initiatives; one rural and one peri-urban in southern Mozambique.METHODS The rural programme is a regional project involving the participation and co-ordination of organizations across three countries in southern Africa and is focussed on control in an area in Mozambique of 7552 km(2). The second programme focusses on spraying a peri-urban community within a 10-km radius around MOZAL, an aluminium smelter plant of area 410 km(2). An ingredients approach was used to derive unit costs for both the rural and peri-urban spraying programmes using detail retrospective cost data and effectiveness indicators.RESULTS The economic cost per person covered per year using Carbamates for indoor residual spraying (IRS) in the rural area, excluding the costs of project management and monitoring and surveillance was $3.48 and in the peri-urban area, $2.16. The financial costs per person covered in the rural area and peri-urban area per year were $3.86 and $2.41, respectively. The economic costs per person covered were respectively increased by 39% and 31% when project management and monitoring and surveillance were included. The main driving forces behind the costs of delivering RHS are twofold: the population covered and insecticide used. Computed economic and financial costs are presented for all four insecticide families available for use in RHS.CONCLUSIONS The results from both these initiatives, especially the rural area, should be interpreted as conservative cost estimates as they exclude the additional health gains that the newly introduced programmes have had on malaria rates in the neighbouring areas of South Africa and Swaziland. Both these initiatives show that introducing an IRS programme can deliver a reduction in malaria-related suffering providing financial support, political will, collaborative management and training and community involvement are in place.