Limits...
Malaria prevention in north-eastern Tanzania: patterns of expenditure and determinants of demand at the household level.

McElroy B, Wiseman V, Matovu F, Mwengee W - Malar. J. (2009)

Bottom Line: Expenditure was compared across bed nets, aerosols, coils, indoor spraying, using smoke, drinking herbs and cleaning outside environment. 68% of households owned at least one bed net and 27% had treated their nets in the past six months. 29% were unable to afford a net.Poor quality roads and living in a rural area had a negative impact on expenditure.Poor households living in rural areas spend significantly less on all forms of malaria prevention compared to their richer counterparts.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Economics, University College, Cork, Ireland. b.mcelroy@ucc.ie

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study aims to provide a better understanding of the amounts spent on different malaria prevention products and the determinants of these expenditures.

Methods: 1,601 households were interviewed about their expenditure on malaria mosquito nets in the past five years, net re-treatments in the past six months and other expenditures prevention in the past two weeks. Simple random sampling was used to select villages and streets while convenience sampling was used to select households. Expenditure was compared across bed nets, aerosols, coils, indoor spraying, using smoke, drinking herbs and cleaning outside environment.

Findings: 68% of households owned at least one bed net and 27% had treated their nets in the past six months. 29% were unable to afford a net. Every fortnight, households spent an average of US $0.18 on nets and their treatment, constituting about 47% of total prevention expenditure. Sprays, repellents and coils made up 50% of total fortnightly expenditure (US$0.21). Factors positively related to expenditure were household wealth, years of education of household head, household head being married and rainy season. Poor quality roads and living in a rural area had a negative impact on expenditure.

Conclusion: Expenditure on bed nets and on alternative malaria prevention products was comparable. Poor households living in rural areas spend significantly less on all forms of malaria prevention compared to their richer counterparts. Breaking the cycle between malaria and poverty is one of the biggest challenges facing malaria control programmes in Africa.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Per capita expenditure on prevention by SES.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2683859&req=5

Figure 2: Per capita expenditure on prevention by SES.

Mentions: To further examine affordability, Figures 1 and 2 examine the relationship between socioeconomic status and malaria prevention more closely. Figure 1 shows that bed net ownership significantly increased with socioeconomic status. Households in the lowest quintile owned an average of around one bed net (0.13 per capita) compared to those in the highest quintile who owned between five and six nets (0.57 per capita), or 4.2 times more per capita. The difference is even starker for ITNs. Households in the lowest quintile owned an average of 0.01 ITNs per capita compared to those in the highest quintile who owned an average of 0.35 ITNs per capita, or 29.5 times more per capita.


Malaria prevention in north-eastern Tanzania: patterns of expenditure and determinants of demand at the household level.

McElroy B, Wiseman V, Matovu F, Mwengee W - Malar. J. (2009)

Per capita expenditure on prevention by SES.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2683859&req=5

Figure 2: Per capita expenditure on prevention by SES.
Mentions: To further examine affordability, Figures 1 and 2 examine the relationship between socioeconomic status and malaria prevention more closely. Figure 1 shows that bed net ownership significantly increased with socioeconomic status. Households in the lowest quintile owned an average of around one bed net (0.13 per capita) compared to those in the highest quintile who owned between five and six nets (0.57 per capita), or 4.2 times more per capita. The difference is even starker for ITNs. Households in the lowest quintile owned an average of 0.01 ITNs per capita compared to those in the highest quintile who owned an average of 0.35 ITNs per capita, or 29.5 times more per capita.

Bottom Line: Expenditure was compared across bed nets, aerosols, coils, indoor spraying, using smoke, drinking herbs and cleaning outside environment. 68% of households owned at least one bed net and 27% had treated their nets in the past six months. 29% were unable to afford a net.Poor quality roads and living in a rural area had a negative impact on expenditure.Poor households living in rural areas spend significantly less on all forms of malaria prevention compared to their richer counterparts.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Economics, University College, Cork, Ireland. b.mcelroy@ucc.ie

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study aims to provide a better understanding of the amounts spent on different malaria prevention products and the determinants of these expenditures.

Methods: 1,601 households were interviewed about their expenditure on malaria mosquito nets in the past five years, net re-treatments in the past six months and other expenditures prevention in the past two weeks. Simple random sampling was used to select villages and streets while convenience sampling was used to select households. Expenditure was compared across bed nets, aerosols, coils, indoor spraying, using smoke, drinking herbs and cleaning outside environment.

Findings: 68% of households owned at least one bed net and 27% had treated their nets in the past six months. 29% were unable to afford a net. Every fortnight, households spent an average of US $0.18 on nets and their treatment, constituting about 47% of total prevention expenditure. Sprays, repellents and coils made up 50% of total fortnightly expenditure (US$0.21). Factors positively related to expenditure were household wealth, years of education of household head, household head being married and rainy season. Poor quality roads and living in a rural area had a negative impact on expenditure.

Conclusion: Expenditure on bed nets and on alternative malaria prevention products was comparable. Poor households living in rural areas spend significantly less on all forms of malaria prevention compared to their richer counterparts. Breaking the cycle between malaria and poverty is one of the biggest challenges facing malaria control programmes in Africa.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus