Search

Abstract Background Mass drug administration and mass-screen-and-treat interventions have been used to interrupt malaria transmission and reduce burden in sub-Saharan Africa. Determining which strategy will reduce costs is an important challenge for implementers; however, model-based simulations and field studies have yet to develop consensus guidelines. Moreover, there is often no way for decision-makers to directly interact with these data and/or models, incorporate local knowledge and expertise, and re-fit parameters to guide their specific goals. Methods We propose a general framework for comparing costs associated with mass drug administrations and mass screen and treat based on the possible outcomes of each intervention and the costs associated with each outcome. We then used publicly available data from six countries in western Africa to develop spatial-explicit probabilistic models to estimate intervention costs based on baseline malaria prevalence, diagnostic performance, and sociodemographic factors (age and urbanicity). In addition to comparing specific scenarios, we also develop interactive web applications which allow managers to select data sources and model parameters, and directly input their own cost values. Results The regional-level models revealed substantial spatial heterogeneity in malaria prevalence and diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity, indicating that a “one-size-fits-all” approach is unlikely to maximize resource allocation. For instance, urban communities in Burkina Faso typically had lower prevalence rates compared to rural communities (0.151 versus 0.383, respectively) as well as lower diagnostic sensitivity (0.699 versus 0.862, respectively); however, there was still substantial regional variation. Adjusting the cost associated with false negative diagnostic results to included additional costs, such as delayed treated and potential lost wages, undermined the overall costs associated with MSAT. Conclusions The observed spatial variability and dependence on specified cost values support not only the need for location-specific intervention approaches but also the need to move beyond standard modeling approaches and towards interactive tools which allow implementers to engage directly with data and models. We believe that the framework demonstrated in this article will help connect modeling efforts and stakeholders in order to promote data-driven decision-making for the effective management of malaria, as well as other diseases.

Background: Mass drug administration and mass-screen-and-treat interventions have been used to interrupt malaria transmission and reduce burden in sub-Saharan Africa. Determining which strategy will reduce costs is an important challenge for implementers; however, model-based simulations and field studies have yet to develop consensus guidelines. Moreover, there is often no way for decision-makers to directly interact with these data and/or models, incorporate local knowledge and expertise, and re-fit parameters to guide their specific goals.Methods: We propose a general framework for comparing costs associated with mass drug administrations and mass screen and treat based on the possible outcomes of each intervention and the costs associated with each outcome. We then used publicly available data from six countries in western Africa to develop spatial-explicit probabilistic models to estimate intervention costs based on baseline malaria prevalence, diagnostic performance, and sociodemographic factors (age and urbanicity). In addition to comparing specific scenarios, we also develop interactive web applications which allow managers to select data sources and model parameters, and directly input their own cost values.Results: The regional-level models revealed substantial spatial heterogeneity in malaria prevalence and diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity, indicating that a "one-size-fits-all" approach is unlikely to maximize resource allocation. For instance, urban communities in Burkina Faso typically had lower prevalence rates compared to rural communities (0.151 versus 0.383, respectively) as well as lower diagnostic sensitivity (0.699 versus 0.862, respectively); however, there was still substantial regional variation. Adjusting the cost associated with false negative diagnostic results to included additional costs, such as delayed treated and potential lost wages, undermined the overall costs associated with MSAT.Conclusions: The observed spatial variability and dependence on specified cost values support not only the need for location-specific intervention approaches but also the need to move beyond standard modeling approaches and towards interactive tools which allow implementers to engage directly with data and models. We believe that the framework demonstrated in this article will help connect modeling efforts and stakeholders in order to promote data-driven decision-making for the effective management of malaria, as well as other diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]