Department of Vector Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, UK.
Centre for Applied Health Research and Delivery (CAHRD), Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
BMC Public Health. 2020 Dec 7;20(1):1870. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09846-4.
Malaria-endemic countries distribute long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) through combined channels with ambitious, universal coverage (UC) targets. Kenya has used eight channels with variable results. To inform national decision-makers, this two-arm study compares coverage (effects), costs, cost-effectiveness, and equity of two combinations of LLIN distribution channels in Kenya.
Two combinations of five delivery channels were compared as 'intervention' and 'control' arms. The intervention arm comprised four channels: community health volunteer (CHV), antenatal and child health clinics (ANCC), social marketing (SM) and commercial outlets (CO). The control arm consisted of the intervention arm channels except mass campaign (MC) replaced CHV. Primary analysis used random sample household survey data, service-provider costs, and voucher or LLIN distribution data to compare between-arm effects, costs, cost-effectiveness, and equity. Secondary analyses compared costs and equity by channel.
The multiple distribution channels used in both arms of the study achieved high LLIN ownership and use. The intervention arm had significantly lower reported LLIN use the night before the survey (84·8% [95% CI 83·0-86·4%] versus 89·2% [95% CI 87·8-90·5%], p < 0·0001), higher unit costs ($10·56 versus $7·17), was less cost-effective ($86·44, 95% range $75·77-$102·77 versus $69·20, 95% range $63·66-$77·23) and more inequitable (Concentration index [C.Ind] = 0·076 [95% CI 0·057 to 0·095 versus C.Ind = 0.049 [95% CI 0·030 to 0·067]) than the control arm. Unit cost per LLIN distributed was lowest for MC ($3·10) followed by CHV ($10·81) with both channels being moderately inequitable in favour of least-poor households.
In line with best practices, the multiple distribution channel model achieved high LLIN ownership and use in this Kenyan study setting. The control-arm combination, which included MC, was the most cost-effective way to increase UC at household level. Mass campaigns, combined with continuous distribution channels, are an effective and cost-effective way to achieve UC in Kenya. The findings are relevant to other countries and donors seeking to optimise LLIN distribution.
The assignment of the intervention was not at the discretion of the investigators; therefore, this study did not require registration.
疟疾流行国家通过有雄心的、普及性覆盖(UC)目标的联合渠道分发长效驱虫蚊帐(LLINs)。肯尼亚已经使用了八种渠道,结果各不相同。为了为国家决策者提供信息,本项双臂研究比较了肯尼亚两种 LLIN 分发渠道组合的覆盖范围(效果)、成本、成本效益和公平性。
两种由五个交付渠道组成的组合被用作“干预”和“对照”臂。干预臂包括四个渠道:社区卫生志愿者(CHV)、产前和儿童保健诊所(ANCC)、社会营销(SM)和商业网点(CO)。对照臂由干预臂组成,除大规模运动(MC)用 CHV 取代外,其余渠道相同。主要分析使用随机抽样家庭调查数据、服务提供者成本以及代金券或 LLIN 分发数据来比较臂间效果、成本、成本效益和公平性。二次分析按渠道比较了成本和公平性。
研究双臂中使用的多种分发渠道实现了较高的 LLIN 拥有率和使用率。干预臂在前一天晚上接受调查时报告的 LLIN 使用情况明显较低(84.8%[95%CI 83.0-86.4%]与 89.2%[95%CI 87.8-90.5%],p<0.0001),单位成本较高($10.56 与 $7.17),成本效益较低($86.44,95%范围$75.77-$102.77 与 $69.20,95%范围$63.66-$77.23),公平性更差(集中指数[C.Ind]=$0.076[95%CI 0.057 至 0.095]与 C.Ind=$0.049[95%CI 0.030 至 0.067])。每个分发的 LLIN 的单位成本最低的是 MC($3.10),其次是 CHV($10.81),这两个渠道都有利于最贫困家庭,具有中等公平性。
与最佳实践一致,该多重分发渠道模型在肯尼亚研究环境中实现了较高的 LLIN 拥有率和使用率。对照臂组合包括 MC,是提高家庭层面 UC 的最具成本效益的方法。大规模运动与持续分发渠道相结合,是实现肯尼亚 UC 的一种有效且具有成本效益的方法。这些发现与其他寻求优化 LLIN 分发的国家和捐助者相关。