Table 2Qualitative assessment of costs, effectiveness, technical feasibility, and sustainability of vector control measures adopted by the UMCP, and prioritization of interventions, as assessed by the program manager*

Cost†
Vector control interventions Material Operational Community effectiveness‡ Technical feasibility‡ Sustainability‡ Priority§
IRHS +++ +++ + + C
ITNs distribution +++ ++ + ++ C
ITNs re-impregnation + + +/– ++ +/– B
Larviciding ++ ++ + + C
IGR ++ + ++ ++ ++ A
ULV +++ ++ + C
EPSB ++ ++ +++ + B
Drain maintenance + ++ +++ +++ +++ A
*

IRHS = indoor residual house spraying; ITNs = insecticide-treated bed nets; IGR = insect growth regulator; ULV = ultra low volume; EPSB = expanded polystyrene beads.

+ = least expensive measure for control; ++ = medium costly intervention; +++ = most expensive intervention.

– = no effect; +/– uncertain effect; + = positive effect; ++ = strong positive effect; +++ = very strong positive effect.

§

The scale for the qualitative assessment of the prioritization of interventions ranges according to the combination of cost, community effectiveness, feasibility, and sustainability. A = intervention with the highest priority; B = intervention with a medium priority; C = intervention with the least priority.

From: Integrated Urban Malaria Control: A Case Study in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania

Cover of The Intolerable Burden of Malaria II: What's New, What's Needed
The Intolerable Burden of Malaria II: What's New, What's Needed: Supplement to Volume 71(2) of the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.
Breman JG, Alilio MS, Mills A, editors.
Copyright © 2004, American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.