↓ Skip to main content

Routine implementation costs of larviciding with Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis against malaria vectors in a district in rural Burkina Faso

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Routine implementation costs of larviciding with Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis against malaria vectors in a district in rural Burkina Faso
Published in
Malaria Journal, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1438-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Dambach, Michael Schleicher, Hans-Christian Stahl, Issouf Traoré, Norbert Becker, Achim Kaiser, Ali Sié, Rainer Sauerborn

Abstract

The key tools in malaria control are early diagnosis and treatment of cases as well as vector control. Current strategies for malaria vector control in sub-Saharan Africa are largely based on long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) and to a much smaller extent on indoor residual spraying (IRS). An additional tool in the fight against malaria vectors, larval source management (LSM), has not been used in sub-Saharan Africa on a wider scale since the abandonment of environmental spraying of DDT. Increasing concerns about limitations of LLINs and IRS and encouraging results from large larvicide-based LSM trials make a strong case for using biological larviciding as a complementary tool to existing control measures. Arguments that are often quoted against such a combined approach are the alleged high implementation costs of LSM. This study makes the first step to test this argument. The implementation costs of larval source management based on Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) (strain AM65-52) spraying under different implementation scenarios were analysed in a rural health district in Burkina Faso. The analysis draws on detailed cost data gathered during a large-scale LSM intervention between 2013 and 2015. All 127 villages in the study setup were assigned to two treatment arms and one control group. Treatment either implied exhaustive spraying of all available water collections or targeted spraying of the 50 % most productive larval sources via remote-sensing derived and entomologically validated risk maps. Based on the cost reports from both intervention arms, the per capita programme costs were calculated under the assumption of covering the whole district with either intervention scenario. Cost calculations have been generalized by providing an adaptable cost formula. In addition, this study assesses the sensitivity of per capita programme costs with respect to changes in the underlying cost components. The average annual per capita costs of exhaustive larviciding with Bti during the main malaria transmission period (June-October) in the Nouna health district were calculated to be US$ 1.05. When targeted spraying of the 50 % most productive larval sources is used instead, average annual per capita costs decrease by 27 % to US$ 0.77. Additionally, a high sensitivity of per capita programme costs against changes in total surface of potential larval sources and the number of spraying repetitions was found. The per capita costs for larval source management interventions with Bti are roughly a third of the annual per capita expenditures for anti-malarial drugs and those for LLINs in Burkina Faso which are US$ 3.80 and 3.00, respectively. The average LSM costs compare to those of IRS and LLINs for sub-Saharan Africa. The authors argue that in such a setting LSM based on Bti spraying is within the range of affordable anti-malarial strategies and, consequently, should deserve more attention in practice. Future research includes a cost-benefit calculation, based on entomological and epidemiological data collected during the research project.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ghana 1 <1%
Unknown 116 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 24%
Student > Master 25 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 21 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Other 24 21%
Unknown 26 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2016.
All research outputs
#1,705,647
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#315
of 5,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,877
of 364,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#9
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,027 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.