↓ Skip to main content

How absolute is zero? An evaluation of historical and current definitions of malaria elimination

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
200 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
How absolute is zero? An evaluation of historical and current definitions of malaria elimination
Published in
Malaria Journal, July 2010
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-9-213
Pubmed ID
Authors

Justin M Cohen, Bruno Moonen, Robert W Snow, David L Smith

Abstract

Decisions to eliminate malaria from all or part of a country involve a complex set of factors, and this complexity is compounded by ambiguity surrounding some of the key terminology, most notably "control" and "elimination." It is impossible to forecast resource and operational requirements accurately if endpoints have not been defined clearly, yet even during the Global Malaria Eradication Program, debate raged over the precise definition of "eradication." Analogous deliberations regarding the meaning of "elimination" and "control" are basically nonexistent today despite these terms' core importance to programme planning. To advance the contemporary debate about these issues, this paper presents a historical review of commonly used terms, including control, elimination, and eradication, to help contextualize current understanding of these concepts. The review has been supported by analysis of the underlying mathematical concepts on which these definitions are based through simple branching process models that describe the proliferation of malaria cases following importation. Through this analysis, the importance of pragmatic definitions that are useful for providing malaria control and elimination programmes with a practical set of strategic milestones is emphasized, and it is argued that current conceptions of elimination in particular fail to achieve these requirements. To provide all countries with precise targets, new conceptual definitions are suggested to more precisely describe the old goals of "control" - here more exactly named "controlled low-endemic malaria" - and "elimination." Additionally, it is argued that a third state, called "controlled non-endemic malaria," is required to describe the epidemiological condition in which endemic transmission has been interrupted, but malaria resulting from onwards transmission from imported infections continues to occur at a sufficiently high level that elimination has not been achieved. Finally, guidelines are discussed for deriving the separate operational definitions and metrics that will be required to make these concepts relevant, measurable, and achievable for a particular environment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 3%
United States 2 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Vietnam 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Unknown 187 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 21%
Student > Master 37 19%
Researcher 28 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 8%
Other 15 8%
Other 41 21%
Unknown 21 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 56 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 46 23%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Environmental Science 10 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Other 42 21%
Unknown 27 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 May 2021.
All research outputs
#13,036,281
of 23,322,258 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,067
of 5,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,398
of 95,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#41
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,657 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 95,868 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.