The economic payoffs of integrated malaria control in the Zambian copperbelt between 1930 and 1950

Abstract

It has long been suggested that malaria is delaying the economic development of countries that are most severely affected by the disease. Several studies have documented the economic consequences of malaria at the household level, primarily in communities engaged in subsistence farming. A missing element is the appraisal of the economic impact of malaria on the industrial and service sectors that will probably become the backbone of many developing economies. We estimate the economic effects of integrated malaria control implemented during the colonial period and sustained for 20 years in four copper mining communities of the former Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). Integrated malaria control was characterized by strong emphasis on environmental management, while part of the mining communities also benefited from rapid diagnosis and treatment and the use of bednets. The programmes were highly successful as an estimated 14 122 deaths, 517 284 malaria attacks and 942 347 work shift losses were averted. Overall, 127 226 disability adjusted life years (DALYs) were averted per 3‐year incremental period. The cumulative costs of malaria control interventions were US$ 11 169 472 (in 1995 US$). Because the control programmes were so effective, the mining companies attracted a large reservoir of migrant labourers and sustained healthy work forces. The programmes averted an estimated US$ 796 622 in direct treatment costs and US$ 5 678 745 in indirect costs as a result of reduced work absenteeism. Within a few years of programme initiation, Northern Rhodesia became the leading copper producer in Africa, and mining generated the dominant share of national income. Copper production and revenues, which increased dramatically during malaria control interventions, amounted to the equivalent of US$ 7.1 billion (in 1995 US$). Integrated malaria control in copper mining communities was a sound investment. It had payoff for public and occupational health, generally, and without it copper extraction and social and economic development would have been impossible.

Effect of dengue vector control interventions on entomological parameters in developing countries: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…This supports the suggestion that combining interventions produces a higher overall effect. For malaria, there is growing evidence that integrated control approaches are highly effective ( Utzinger et al , 2002;Castro et al , 2004; Honduras, El Progreso, 1988 (Fernández et al, 1998) Mexico, Yucatan, 1990(Lloyd et al, 1992 Puerto Rico, NA, 1986 (Winch et al, 2002) Cuba, Havana, 1999 (Sanchez et al, 2005) Thailand, Kohn Kaen, 2001 (Phuanukoonnon et al, 2005) Philippines, Labangon, 1997 (Madarieta et al, 1999) Indonesia, Pekalongan, 1985(Suroso & Suroso, 1990 …”

Are coinfections of malaria and filariasis of any epidemiological significance?

“…The disappearance of Brugian filariasis in 18 of the 21 foci previously recognized in Sri Lanka was attributed to the destruction of the aquatic plant Pistia stratiotes that is associated with the breeding of Mansonia vectors after a malaria vector control program (Abdulcader 1967). Source reduction was one of the methods used to achieve effective eradication of malaria in the United States, Italy, Israel (Kitron and Spielman 1989) and Zambian copper belt (Utzinger et al 2002). The same method was used to eradicate A. gambiae in northeast Brazil, where it was well established and an important vector of malaria (Soper and Wilson 1943).…”

Mathematical Modeling of the Impact of Malaria Vaccines on the Clinical Epidemiology and Natural History of Plasmodium Falciparum Malaria: Overview

“…34 On the macroeconomic scale, malaria has measured effects on foreign direct investment, population mobility, tourism, and international trade, but the causal relationships of how malaria delays social and economic advancement of whole societies remain elusive. 35,36 Interdependence of hosts. An epidemiologic model for the effects of a vaccination program must consider the dependence between events in different individuals.…”