Search

In Sub-Sahara Africa, malaria inflicts a high healthcare expenditure to individuals. However, little is known about healthcare expenditure to individual affected by malaria and determinants of healthcare seeking behaviour in urban settings where private sector is thriving. This study investigated the level and correlates of expenditure among individuals with self-reported malaria episode in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. A cross-sectional household survey conducted in August-November 2011 in Ouagadougou covered 8,243 individuals (1,600 households). Using Generalized Estimating Equations, the analysis included 1082 individuals from 715 households, who reported an episode of malaria. Of individuals surveyed, 38.3% sought care from public, 27.4% from private providers, and, 34.2% self-medicated. The median cost for malaria treatment was USD10.1 (4,850.0XOF) with significant different between public, private and self-medication (p<0.001). In public primary care health facilities, the median cost was USD8.4 (4,050.0XOF) for uncomplicated malaria and USD15.2 (7,333.5XOF) for severe malaria. In private-for-profit facilities run by a medical doctor, the median cost was USD30.3 (14,600.0XOF) for uncomplicated malaria and USD 43.0 (20,725.0XOF) for severe malaria. Regardless of the source of care, patients with insurance incurred significantly higher expenditure compared to those without insurance (p<0.001) and medicine accounted for the largest share of the expenditure. The type of provider, having insurance, and the severity of the malaria predict the amount of money spent. The high financial cost of malaria treatment regardless of the providers poses threat to the goal of universal access to malaria interventions, the unique way to achieve elimination goals., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Intermittent preventive treatment with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP) is being implemented in most malaria endemic countries as a standard two-doses regimen as it reduces the risk of low birth weight (LBW) and the prevalence of maternal anaemia. Nevertheless, where the risk of infection close to delivery is high because of intense transmission, a third IPTp-SP dose may further reduce the negative effects of malaria on pregnancy outcome. Methods: Pregnant women in the 2nd or 3rd trimester were randomized to receive either 2 (SP2) or 3 doses (SP3) of SP. Trained field workers paid home visits to the women for drug administration according to a predefined drug delivery schedule. Women were encouraged to attend their scheduled ANC visits and to deliver at the health facilities where the new-born was weighed. The prevalence of LBW (<2500 g), severe anaemia (Hb < 8 g/dL) and premature birth was analysed using intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis. Results: Data from 1274 singleton pregnancies were analysed (641 in the SP3 and 633 in the SP2 group). The uptake of the intervention appeared to be low. Though the prevalence of LBW in both intervention groups was similar (adjusted Incident Rate Ratio, AIRR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.69-1.24) in the ITT analysis, the risk of severe anaemia was significantly lower in the SP3 group compared to the SP2 group (AIRR = 0.38, 95%CI: 0.16 - 0.90). The PP analysis showed a trend of reduced risk of LBW, severe anaemia and premature delivery in the SP3 group, albeit the difference between two and three IPTp-SP did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: The risk of LBW and severe anaemia tended to be lower in the SP3 group, though this was not statistically significant, probably due to the low uptake of the intervention which reduced the power of the study. Further studies are needed for establishing whether a third SP dose has a real benefit in preventing the negative effects of malaria in pregnancy in settings where transmission is markedly seasonal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]