Exploring the use of routinely-available, retrospective data to study the association between malaria control scale-up and micro-economic outcomes in Zambia

Abstract

BackgroundCountry-level evidence on the impact of malaria control on micro-economic outcomes is vital for mobilizing domestic and donor resources for malaria control. Using routinely available survey data could facilitate this investigation in a cost-efficient way.MethodsThe authors used Malaria Indicator Surveys (MIS) and Living Conditions Monitoring Survey (LCMS) data from 2006 to 2010 for all 72 districts in Zambia to relate malaria control scale-up with household food spending (proxy for household well-being), educational attainment and agricultural production. The authors used two quasi-experimental designs: (1) a generalized propensity score for a continuous treatment variable (defined as coverage from owning insecticide-treated bed nets and/or receipt of indoor residual spraying); and, (2) a district fixed effects model to assess changes in the outcome relative to changes in treatment pre-post scale-up. The unit of analysis was at district level. The authors also conducted simulations post-analysis to assess statistical power.ResultsMicro-economic outcomes increased (33% increase in food spending) concurrently with malaria control coverage (62% increase) from 2006 to 2010. Despite using data from all 72 districts, both analytic methods yielded wide confidence intervals that do not conclusively link outcomes and malaria control coverage increases. The authors cannot rule out positive, null or negative effects. The upper bound estimates of the results show that if malaria control coverage increases from 60 to 70%, food spending could increase up to 14%, maize production could increase up to 57%, and years of schooling could increase up to 0.5 years. Simulations indicated that the generalized propensity score model did not have good statistical power.ConclusionWhile it is technically possible to use routinely available survey data to relate malaria control scale-up and micro-economic outcomes, it is not clear from this analysis that meaningful results can be obtained when survey data are highly aggregated. Researchers in similar settings should assess the feasibility of disaggregating existing survey data. Additionally, large surveys, such as LCMS and MIS, could incorporate data on both malaria coverage and household expenditures, respectively.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12936-016-1665-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Modelling of malaria risk, rates, and trends: A spatiotemporal approach for identifying and targeting sub-national areas of high and low burden

“…Despite the continued fight against high malaria endemicity for the last half-century, Zambia is among those sub-Saharan countries affected by the reported stagnation in malaria progress [6,7]. With a massive scale-up in interventions [7][8][9][10] in the last decade, Zambia achieved considerable progress, resulting in a move away from control targets to elimination aspirations [11]. Zambia embraced the currently renewed global interest for malaria elimination, and strategically positioned itself within a regional and global malaria eradication context.…”

Estimating malaria chemoprevention and vector control coverage using program and campaign data: A scoping review of current practices and opportunities

“…The most commonly reported indicator using program data was the proportion of enumerated structures sprayed (per spray cycle) using spray campaign data [ 59 , 67 , 68 , 72 , 73 , 77 , 78 ]. None of the reviewed studies reported the proportion of population at risk sleeping under an ITN or living in a house sprayed by IRS in the previous 12 months, potentially due to the difficulties in translating program data to household-level ownership measures [ 81 ]. Two studies reported estimates for the proportion of the population at risk protected by IRS, using routine monitoring data [ 59 , 77 ].…”

Does Deforestation Increase Malaria Prevalence? Evidence from Satellite Data and Health Surveys

“…Our DHS-survey data on malaria at the individual level should be at least as good if not better than jurisdictional-level data, which necessarily rely on modeling assumptions to estimate population-level malaria rates. While greater levels of granularity are conceptually superior to aggregated data (e.g., Comfort et al, 2017), the difference in approach could account for the difference in findings.…”

“…Spatially aggregated data is potentially prone to the ecological fallacy (Piantadosi, 1988) or unmeasured confounding factors. One study of aggregated malaria survey data concluded that "it is not clear…that meaningful results can be obtained when survey data are highly aggregated; researchers…should asses the feasibility of disaggregating existing survey data" (Comfort et al, 2017). Fourth, the number of observations in previous studies is small, with fewer than 1000 observations in all but one study and fewer than 100 observations in three studies.…”