Welcome to CDC Stacks | Scale-up of integrated malaria vector control: lessons from Malawi - 39876 | CDC Public Access
Stacks Logo
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.
 
 
Help
Clear All Simple Search
Advanced Search
Scale-up of integrated malaria vector control: lessons from Malawi
Filetype[PDF - 556.63 KB]


Details:
  • Pubmed ID:
    27274600
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC4890203
  • Document Type:
  • Collection(s):
  • Description:
    Problem

    Indoor residual spraying and long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) are key tools for malaria vector control. Malawi has struggled to scale up indoor residual spraying and to improve LLIN coverage and usage.

    Approach

    In 2002, the Malawian National Malaria Control Programme developed guidelines for insecticide treated net distribution to reach the strategic target of at least 60% coverage of households with an LLIN. By 2005, the target coverage was 80% of households and the Global Fund financed the scale-up. The US President’s Malaria Initiative funded the indoor residual spraying intervention.

    Local setting

    Malawi’s entire population is considered to be at risk of malaria. Poor vector control, insecticide resistance in malaria vectors and insufficient technical and financial support have exacerbated the malaria burden.

    Relevant changes

    Between 2002 and 2012, 18 248 206 LLINs had been distributed. The coverage of at least one LLIN per household increased from 27% (3689/13 664) to 58% (1974/3404). Indoor residual spraying coverage increased from 28 227 to 653 592 structures between 2007 and 2011. However, vector resistance prompted a switch from pyrethroids to organophosphates for indoor residual spraying, which increased the cost and operations needed to be cut back from seven to one district. Malaria cases increased from 2 853 315 in 2002 to 6 748 535 in 2010, and thereafter dropped to 4 922 596 in 2012.

    Lessons learnt

    A single intervention-based approach for vector control may have suboptimal impact. Well-coordinated integrated vector management may offer greater benefits. A resistance management plan is essential for effective and sustainable vector control.