IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Cost-effectiveness of malaria control interventions when malaria mortality is low: insecticide-treated nets versus in-house residual spraying in India

Listed author(s):
  • Bhatia, Mrigesh R
  • Fox-Rushby, Julia
  • Mills, Anne
Registered author(s):

    Malaria is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the developing world and a major public health problem in India. Disillusioned by in-house residual spraying (IRS), and increasingly aware that insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) have proved to be effective in reducing malaria mortality and morbidity in various epidemiological settings, policy-makers in India are keen to identify which is the more cost-effective malaria control intervention. A community randomised controlled trial was set up in Surat to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of IRS and ITNs. Both control strategies were shown to be effective in preventing malaria over the base-case scenario of early diagnosis and prompt treatment. The mean costs per case averted for ITNs was statistically significantly lower (Rs. 1848, 1567-2209; US$ 52) than IRS (Rs. 3121, 2386-4177, US$ 87). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ITNs over IRS was Rs. 799 (US$ 22). The conclusions were robust to changes in assumptions. This study expands the scope of recent comparative economic evaluations of ITNs and IRS, since it was carried out in a low mortality malaria endemic area.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 59 (2004)
    Issue (Month): 3 (August)
    Pages: 525-539

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:59:y:2004:i:3:p:525-539
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:59:y:2004:i:3:p:525-539. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.