Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39363178›Full record

SynthesisMalaria journal2024

Models for malaria control optimization-a systematic review.

Randolph Ngwafor, Sunil Pokharel, Ricardo Aguas, Lisa White, Rima Shretta

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Malaria journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Randolph NgwaforNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. randolph.ngwaforanye@ndm.ox.ac.uk.
Sunil PokharelNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Ricardo AguasNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Lisa WhiteDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Rima ShrettaNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. rima.shretta@ndm.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation INV047-048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite advances made in curbing the global malaria burden since the 2000s, progress has stalled, in part due to a plateauing of the financing available to implement needed interventions. In 2020, approximately 3.3 billion USD was invested globally for malaria interventions, falling short of the targeted 6.8 billion USD set by the GTS, increasing the financial gap between desirable and actual investment. Models for malaria control optimization are used to disentangle the most efficient interventions or packages of interventions for inherently constrained budgets. This systematic review aimed to identify and characterise models for malaria control optimization for resource allocation in limited resource settings and assess their strengths and limitations.

methodsFollowing the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and Preferred reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, a comprehensive search across PubMed and Embase databases was performed of peer-reviewed literature published from inception until June 2024. The following keywords were used: optimization model; malaria; control interventions; elimination interventions. Editorials, commentaries, opinion papers, conference abstracts, media reports, letters, bulletins, pre-prints, grey literature, non-English language studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were excluded from the search.

resultsThe search yielded 2950 records, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. The studies were carried out mainly in countries in Africa (53.3%), such as Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, and countries in Asia (26.7%), such as Thailand and Myanmar. The most used interventions for analyses were insecticide-treated bed nets (93.3%), IRS (80.0%), Seasonal Malaria Chemoprevention (33.3%) and Case management (33.3%). The methods used for estimating health benefits were compartmental models (40.0%), individual-based models (40.0%), static models (13.0%) and linear regression model (7%). Data used in the analysis were validated country-specific data (60.0%) or non-country-specific data (40.0%) and were analysed at national only (40.0%), national and subnational levels (46.7%), or subnational only levels (13.3%).

conclusionThis review identified available optimization models for malaria resource allocation. The findings highlighted the need for country-specific analysis for malaria control optimization, the use of country-specific epidemiological and cost data in performing modelling analyses, performing cost sensitivity analyses and defining the perspective for the analysis, with an emphasis on subnational tailoring for data collection and analysis for more accurate and good quality results. It is critical that the future modelling efforts account for fairness and target at risk malaria populations that are hard-to-reach to maximize impact.

trial registrationPROSPERO Registration number: CRD42023436966.

Indexed as

MalariaHumansModels, TheoreticalMosquito ControlLimited resource settingMalariaOptimizationResource allocation

Identifiers

PMID39363178
PMCPMC11448400

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.