Mosquito larval source management for controlling malaria

Tusting, Lucy S.; Thwing, Julie; Sinclair, David; Fillinger, Ulrike; Gimnig, John E.; Bonner, Kimberly; Bottomley, Christian; Lindsay, Steve W.

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008923.pub2

Cited by 200 publications

(256 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

250

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 13 policy options recommended by the malaria policy brief group, 5 options were eventually accepted after the "evidence synthesis" (ie, synthesising evidence largely from systematic reviews). [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] These included the following: (i) Distribution of insecticide treated bednets (ITNs) to be more effective, proper orientation on the usage; (ii) Laboratory diagnosis of malaria to be considered along clinical assessment before treatment of malaria; (iii) artemisinin combination therapies (ACTs) recommended but quality control must be ensured; (iv) More funding for research on indigenous malaria drugs; and (v) Vector control using indoor residual spraying and larval source management. The option on restriction of antimalarial prescription as an over the counter (OTC) drug, was replaced with option that chemists to perform rapid diagnostic test for malaria (RDT) before giving antimalarials (Table 5).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the Capacity of Policy-Makers to Develop Evidence-Informed Policy Brief on Infectious Diseases of Poverty in Nigeria

Uneke

Ezeoha

Uro-Chukwu

et al. 2015

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The lack of effective use of research evidence in policy-making is a major challenge in most low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is need to package research data into effective policy tools that will help policy-makers to make evidence-informed policy regarding infectious diseases of poverty (IDP). The objective of this study was to assess the usefulness of training workshops and mentoring to enhance the capacity of Nigerian health policy-makers to develop evidence-informed policy brief on the control of IDP. Methods: A modified "before and after" intervention study design was used in which outcomes were measured on the target participants both before the intervention is implemented and after. A 4-point Likert scale according to the degree of adequacy; 1 = "grossly inadequate, " 4 = "very adequate" was employed. The main parameter measured was participants' perceptions of their own knowledge/understanding. This study was conducted at subnational level and the participants were the career health policy-makers drawn from Ebonyi State in the South-Eastern Nigeria. A oneday evidence-to-policy workshop was organized to enhance the participants' capacity to develop evidence-informed policy brief on IDP in Ebonyi State. Topics covered included collaborative initiative; preparation and use of policy briefs; policy dialogue; ethics in health policy-making; and health policy and politics. Results: The preworkshop mean of knowledge and capacity ranged from 2.49-3.03, while the postworkshop mean ranged from 3.42-3.78 on 4-point scale. The percentage increase in mean of knowledge and capacity at the end of the workshop ranged from 20.10%-45%. Participants were divided into 3 IDP mentorship groups (malaria, schistosomiasis, lymphatic filariasis [LF]) and were mentored to identify potential policy options/recommendations for control of the diseases for the policy briefs. These policy options were subjected to research evidence synthesis by each group to identify the options that have the support of research evidence (mostly systematic reviews) from PubMed, Cochrane database and Google Scholar. After the evidence synthesis, five policy options were selected out of 13 for malaria, 3 out of 10 for schistosomiasis and 5 out of 11 for LF. Conclusion:The outcome suggests that an evidence-to-policy capacity enhancement workshop combined with a mentorship programme can improve policy-makers' capacity for evidence-informed policy-making (EIP). Implications for policy makers• Policy-makers need to have access to the right information on infectious diseases of poverty (IDP) at the right time to inform decisions that draw on the evidence of what works. There are numerous reports which have shown that the availability of timely, suitably packaged and policy relevant research evidence is important in supporting increased use of research evidence in the policy processes. • Policy-makers' knowledge and capacity to develop evidence-informed policy materials such as policy briefs can be enhanced via evidence-top...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the Capacity of Policy-Makers to Develop Evidence-Informed Policy Brief on Infectious Diseases of Poverty in Nigeria

Uneke

Ezeoha

Uro-Chukwu

et al. 2015

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Habitat manipulation and larviciding -including chemical and biological control agents (using predatory fish, entomo-pathogens and parasites) may help to reduce malaria transmission (37). However, larval source reduction and management is only applicable in settings where mosquito breeding sites are few, fixed and findable.…”

Section: Opportunitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Malaria cases in Switzerland from 2005 to 2015 and recent rise of imported Plasmodium vivax malaria

Epéron

Durieux‐Paillard

Mauris³

et al. 2017

Swiss Med Wkly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Based on our experience systematically reviewing the literature [16][17][18][19][20], we have identified repeated problems with vector control studies. To advance evidence-based policy making, the quality of evidence on vector control interventions -specifically the Malaria incidence House screening Socio-economic status (conf ounder)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-based vector control? Improving the quality of vector control trials

Wilson

Boelaert

Kleinschmidt

et al. 2015

Trends in Parasitology

126

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vector-borne diseases (VBDs) such as malaria, dengue, and leishmaniasis cause a high level of morbidity and mortality. Although vector control tools can play a major role in controlling and eliminating these diseases, in many cases the evidence base for assessing the efficacy of vector control interventions is limited or not available. Studies assessing the efficacy of vector control interventions are often poorly conducted, which limits the return on investment of research funding. Here we outline the principal design features of Phase III vector control field studies, highlight major failings and strengths of published studies, and provide guidance on improving the design and conduct of vector control studies. We hope that this critical assessment will increase the impetus for more carefully considered and rigorous design of vector control studies.Evidence-based policy making on vector control VBDs such as malaria, dengue, and leishmaniasis are responsible for considerable morbidity and mortality and fall disproportionately on the poorest communities in the developing world [1-4]. One of the key methods by which VBDs can be controlled and eliminated is through vector control [5-10]; for example, long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) for malaria or indoor residual spraying (IRS) for Chagas disease.Development of vector control interventions follows a multistage process [11] (Figure 1). First, a draft target product profile should be generated. This document guides the development process by outlining the features and performance targets of the intended vector control tool. The next step is demonstrating the proof of concept by conducting Phase I studies (laboratory assays to determine the mode of action) and Phase II (semi-field and small-scale field) studies, which generally have entomological end points. Large-scale Phase III field studies (efficacy studies) (see Glossary) are then conducted, which measure the efficacy of the vector control tool against epidemiological outcomes when implemented under optimal conditions. Based on the results of Phase III trials, the World Health Organization (WHO) will make recommendations for pilot implementation. These Phase IV studies will assess the effectiveness of the vector control tool when it is delivered and used operationally (i.e., under 'real-world' conditions), as well as collecting information on feasibility, distribution mechanisms, acceptability, economics, and safety. Information gathered from the Phase III and IV studies will enable the WHO to draw up policy recommendations and, in parallel, member states will develop country-level policy.Evidence-based policy making on vector control tools is now regarded as essential and is adopted by the WHO [12,13] (Box 1). The quality of evidence on vector control interventions from epidemiological trials or systematic reviews needs to be rated before recommendations and policy can be formulated. Since 2008, the WHO has adopted the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology fo...

show abstract

Mosquito larval source management for controlling malaria

Cited by 200 publications

References 67 publications

Enhancing the Capacity of Policy-Makers to Develop Evidence-Informed Policy Brief on Infectious Diseases of Poverty in Nigeria

Enhancing the Capacity of Policy-Makers to Develop Evidence-Informed Policy Brief on Infectious Diseases of Poverty in Nigeria

Malaria cases in Switzerland from 2005 to 2015 and recent rise of imported Plasmodium vivax malaria

Evidence-based vector control? Improving the quality of vector control trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About