A cost analysis to address issues of budget constraints on the implementation of the indoor residual spray programme in two districts of Maputo Province, Mozambique.
Budget restriction
Cost analysis
Government budget
Indoor residual spray
Intervention operationalization
Mozambique
Official development assistance
Journal
Malaria journal
ISSN: 1475-2875
Titre abrégé: Malar J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jan 2021
06 Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
11
09
2020
accepted:
18
12
2020
revised:
14
12
2020
entrez:
6
1
2021
pubmed:
7
1
2021
medline:
20
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
It is frequently said that funding is essential to ensure optimal results from a malaria intervention control. However, in recent years, the capacity of the government of Mozambique to sustain the operational cost of indoor residual spraying (IRS) is facing numerous challenges due to restrictions of the Official Development Assistance. The purpose of the study was to estimate the cost of IRS operationalization in two districts of Maputo Province (Matutuíne and Namaacha) in Mozambique. The evidence produced in this study intends to provide decision-makers with insight into where they need to pay close attention in future planning in order to operationalize IRS with the existent budget in the actual context of budget restrictions. Cost information was collected retrospectively from the provider perspective, and both economic and financial costs were calculated. A "one-way" deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed. The average economic costs totaled US$117,351.34, with an average economic cost per household sprayed of US$16.35, and an average economic cost per person protected of US$4.09. The average financial cost totaled US$69,174.83, with an average financial cost per household sprayed and per person protected of US$9.84 and US$2.46, respectively. Vehicle, salary, and insecticide costs were the greatest contributors to overall cost in the economic and financial analysis, corresponding to 52%, 17%, and 13% in the economic analysis and 21%, 27%, and 22% in the financial analysis, respectively. The sensitivity analysis was adapted to a range of ± (above and under) 25% change. There was an approximate change of 14% in the average economic cost when vehicle costs were decreased by 25%. In the financial analysis, the average financial cost was lowered by 7% when salary costs were decreased by 25%. Altogether, the current cost analysis provides an impetus for the consideration of targeted IRS operationalization within the available governmental budget, by using locally-available human resources as spray operators to decrease costs and having IRS rounds be correctly timed to coincide with the build-up of vector populations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
It is frequently said that funding is essential to ensure optimal results from a malaria intervention control. However, in recent years, the capacity of the government of Mozambique to sustain the operational cost of indoor residual spraying (IRS) is facing numerous challenges due to restrictions of the Official Development Assistance. The purpose of the study was to estimate the cost of IRS operationalization in two districts of Maputo Province (Matutuíne and Namaacha) in Mozambique. The evidence produced in this study intends to provide decision-makers with insight into where they need to pay close attention in future planning in order to operationalize IRS with the existent budget in the actual context of budget restrictions.
METHODS
METHODS
Cost information was collected retrospectively from the provider perspective, and both economic and financial costs were calculated. A "one-way" deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The average economic costs totaled US$117,351.34, with an average economic cost per household sprayed of US$16.35, and an average economic cost per person protected of US$4.09. The average financial cost totaled US$69,174.83, with an average financial cost per household sprayed and per person protected of US$9.84 and US$2.46, respectively. Vehicle, salary, and insecticide costs were the greatest contributors to overall cost in the economic and financial analysis, corresponding to 52%, 17%, and 13% in the economic analysis and 21%, 27%, and 22% in the financial analysis, respectively. The sensitivity analysis was adapted to a range of ± (above and under) 25% change. There was an approximate change of 14% in the average economic cost when vehicle costs were decreased by 25%. In the financial analysis, the average financial cost was lowered by 7% when salary costs were decreased by 25%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Altogether, the current cost analysis provides an impetus for the consideration of targeted IRS operationalization within the available governmental budget, by using locally-available human resources as spray operators to decrease costs and having IRS rounds be correctly timed to coincide with the build-up of vector populations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33402172
doi: 10.1186/s12936-020-03556-3
pii: 10.1186/s12936-020-03556-3
pmc: PMC7785479
doi:
Substances chimiques
Insecticides
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
8Références
Trop Med Int Health. 2004 Jan;9(1):125-32
pubmed: 14728616
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2003 Feb 26;1(1):1
pubmed: 12773220
Malar J. 2019 Jun 6;18(1):190
pubmed: 31170984
Malar J. 2011 May 02;10:110
pubmed: 21535872
Lancet. 2020 Apr 4;395(10230):1094-1096
pubmed: 32192582
Malar J. 2020 Apr 10;19(1):150
pubmed: 32276585
Trop Med Int Health. 2001 Apr;6(4):280-95
pubmed: 11348519
Trop Med Int Health. 2002 Apr;7(4):298-303
pubmed: 11952944
Malar J. 2013 Feb 13;12:62
pubmed: 23402342
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018 Nov 22;16:61
pubmed: 30498400
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011 Dec;85(6):1080-6
pubmed: 22144448
Trop Med Int Health. 2004 Aug;9(8):846-56
pubmed: 15303988
Emerg Infect Dis. 2007 Feb;13(2):199-206
pubmed: 17479880