Children
Child rights action with informed and engaged societies
Children

After nearly 28 years, The Communication Initiative (The CI) Global is entering a new chapter. 

Following a period of transition, the global website has been transferred to the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) in South Africa, where it will be administered by the Social and Behaviour Change Communication Division. Wits' commitment to social change and justice makes it a trusted steward for The CI's legacy and future. 

On the transfer, co-founder Victoria Martin expressed her pleasure to see this work continue under Wits' leadership, knowing that co-founder Warren Feek (1953–2024) would have felt deep pride in The CI Global's Africa-led direction. 

As Wits, we honour the team and partners who sustained The CI for decades and look forward building from that strong base. This includes co-founders Warren Feek (1953-2024) and Victoria Martin as well as La Iniciativa de Comunicación (CILA), which continues independently at lainiciativadecomunicacion.com with links to The CI Global site. We are also eager to forge new partnerships and entertain new ideas as we consider how best to contribute to social and behaviour change in our rapidly evolving environment.

If you are joining the International Social and Behaviour Change Communication (SBCC) Summit in Panama, please join Wits and CILA on Monday, 22 June, to share your thoughts and suggestion for the relaunch of the Communication Initiative. We will be in Pacifica 5 from 12-1:25 for the Refuel, Reflect, and Renew Lunch Series: The Communication Initiative: celebrating a driving force for Communication for Social Change and the way forward. We will reflect on the legacy of Warren Feek and family in creating the Communication Initiative, consider the contributions of CI over the years and then turn our attention towards the future in this dynamic session. 

If you are unable to join us in Panama, we still want to hear from you. Please contribute your thoughts by following this link: https://redcap.link/CommunicationInitiative2026 or reaching out to ci_surveys@commint.com. 

You can also follow the QR Code:

 https://redcap.link/CommunicationInitiative2026

Time to read
less than
1 minute
Print
a- a+
Published 13 years ago
Last updated 3 years ago
Read so far

Cost-effectiveness of malaria control in sub-Saharan Africa

0 comments

Goodman, C. A., P. G. Coleman, et al. (1999). "Cost-effectiveness of malaria control in sub-Saharan Africa." Lancet 354(9176): 378-385.

BACKGROUND: Information on the cost-effectiveness of malaria control is needed for the WHO Roll Back Malaria campaign, but is sparse. We used mathematical models to calculate cost-effectiveness ratios for the main prevention and treatment interventions in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS: We analysed interventions to prevent malaria in childhood (insecticide-treated nets, residual spraying of houses, and chemoprophylaxis) and pregnancy (chloroquine chemoprophylaxis and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine intermittent treatment), and to improve malaria treatment (improved compliance, improved availability of second-line and third-line drugs, and changes in first-line drug). We developed models that included probabilistic sensitivity analysis to calculate ranges for the cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted for each intervention in three economic strata. Data were obtained from published and unpublished sources, and consultations with researchers and programme managers.

FINDINGS: In a very-low-income country, for insecticide treatment of existing nets, the cost-effectiveness range was US$4-10 per DALY averted; for provision of nets and insecticide treatment $19-85; for residual spraying (two rounds per year) $32-58; for chemoprophylaxis for children $3-12 (assuming an existing delivery system); for intermittent treatment of pregnant women $4-29; and for improvement in case management $1-8. Although some interventions are inexpensive, achieving high coverage with an intervention to prevent childhood malaria would use a high proportion of current health-care expenditure.

INTERPRETATION: Cost-effective interventions are available. A package of interventions to decrease the bulk of the malaria burden is not, however, affordable in very-low-income countries. Coverage of the most vulnerable groups in Africa will require substantial assistance from external donors.