Sunday, 23rd of June 2013 |
The Lancet Early Online Publication, 19 June 2013
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
Original Text
Lucy S Tusting MSc a, Barbara Willey PhD a, Henry Lucas MSc b, John Thompson PhD b, Hmooda T Kafy MSc c, Prof Richard Smith PhD a, Prof Steve W Lindsay PhD d
Summary below; full text is at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60851-X/fulltext
Background
Future progress in tackling malaria mortality will probably be hampered by the development of resistance to drugs and insecticides and by the contraction of aid budgets. Historically, control was often achieved without malaria-specific interventions. Our aim was to assess whether socioeconomic development can contribute to malaria control.
Methods
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether the risk of malaria in children aged 0—15 years is associated with socioeconomic status. We searched Medline, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Campbell Library, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Health Systems Evidence, and the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre evidence library for studies published in English between Jan 1, 1980, and July 12, 2011, that measured socioeconomic status and parasitologically confirmed malaria or clinical malaria in children. Unadjusted and adjusted effect estimates were combined in fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses, with a subgroup analysis for different measures of socioeconomic status. We used funnel plots and Eggers linear regression to test for publication bias.
Findings
Of 4696 studies reviewed, 20 met the criteria for inclusion in the qualitative analysis, and 15 of these reported the necessary data for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The odds of malaria infection were higher in the poorest children than in the least poor children (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·66, 95% CI 1·35—2·05, p<0·001, I2=68%; adjusted OR 2·06, 1·42—2·97, p<0·001, I2=63%), an effect that was consistent across subgroups.
Interpretation
Although we would not recommend discontinuation of existing malaria control efforts, we believe that increased investment in interventions to support socioeconomic development is warranted, since such interventions could prove highly effective and sustainable against malaria in the long term.
Funding
UK Department for International Development.
a London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
b Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK
c National Malaria Control Programme, Federal Ministry of Health, Khartoum, Sudan
d School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Durham University, Durham, UK
Correspondence to: Prof Steve W Lindsay, School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
Are three drugs for malaria better than two?
Friday, 24th of April 2020 |
Public health Interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic
Thursday, 16th of April 2020 |
Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as available weapons to fight COVID-19
Tuesday, 17th of March 2020 |
Using models to shape measles control and elimination strategies in low- and middle-income countries: A review of recent applications
Monday, 17th of February 2020 |
Immunization Agenda 2030
Tuesday, 11th of February 2020 |
41174643 |
www.measlesinitiative.org www.technet21.org www.polioeradication.org www.globalhealthlearning.org www.who.int/bulletin allianceformalariaprevention.com www.malariaworld.org http://www.panafrican-med-journal.com/ |