Is malaria a disease of poverty? A review of the literature (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Relationship Between SocioEconomic Status and Malaria: A Review of the Literature
2009
Malaria is frequently referred to as a disease of the poor or a disease of poverty. A better understanding of the linkages between malaria and poverty is needed to guide the design of coherent and effective policies and tools to tackle malaria and poverty together. While recognising that there are a large number of dimensions of potential vulnerability to malaria
Why is malaria associated with poverty? Findings from a cohort study in rural Uganda
Infectious Diseases of Poverty, 2016
Background: Malaria control and sustainable development are linked, but implementation of 'multisectoral' intervention is restricted by a limited understanding of the causal pathways between poverty and malaria. We investigated the relationships between socioeconomic position (SEP), potential determinants of SEP, and malaria in Nagongera, rural Uganda. Methods: Socioeconomic information was collected for 318 children aged six months to 10 years living in 100 households, who were followed for up to 36 months. Mosquito density was recorded using monthly light trap collections. Parasite prevalence was measured routinely every three months and malaria incidence determined by passive case detection. First, we evaluated the association between success in smallholder agriculture (the primary livelihood source) and SEP. Second, we explored socioeconomic risk factors for human biting rate (HBR), parasite prevalence and incidence of clinical malaria, and spatial clustering of socioeconomic variables. Third, we investigated the role of selected factors in mediating the association between SEP and malaria. Results: Relative agricultural success was associated with higher SEP. In turn, high SEP was associated with lower HBR (highest versus lowest wealth index tertile: Incidence Rate Ratio 0.71, 95 % confidence intervals (CI) 0.54-0.93, P = 0.01) and lower odds of malaria infection in children (highest versus lowest wealth index tertile: adjusted Odds Ratio 0.52, 95 % CI 0.35-0.78, P = 0.001), but SEP was not associated with clinical malaria incidence. Mediation analysis suggested that part of the total effect of SEP on malaria infection risk was explained by house type (24.9 %, 95 % CI 15.8-58.6 %) and food security (18.6 %, 95 % CI 11.6-48.3 %); however, the assumptions of the mediation analysis may not have been fully met. Conclusion: Housing improvements and agricultural development interventions to reduce poverty merit further investigation as multisectoral interventions against malaria. Further interdisplinary research is needed to understand fully the complex pathways between poverty and malaria and to develop strategies for sustainable malaria control.
Annals of the New York …, 2008
Malaria is one of the most important challenges to global public health. African countries south of the Sahara bear today the heaviest burden of malaria. The relationship between poverty and malaria has long been recognized but its paths are multiple and complex. Recent studies suggest that causality works both ways, trapping communities in reinforcing cycles of poverty and disease. If malaria is to be controlled or eventually eliminated, the social and economic conditions that fuel malaria transmission need to be addressed. At the same time, malaria control should be seen as a poverty reduction strategy.
Socioeconomic development as an intervention against malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
The Lancet, 2013
More details/abstract: Background: Future progress in tacking malaria mortality will probably be hampered by the development of resistance to drugs and insecticides and by the contraction of aid budgets. Historically, control was often achieved without malaria specific interventions. Our aim was to assess whether socioeconomic development can contribute to malaria control. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether the risk of malaria in children aged 0-15 years is associated with socioeconomic status. We searched Medline, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Campbell Library, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Health Systems Evidence, and the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre evidence library for studies published in English between Jan 1, 1980, and July 12, 2011, that measured socioeconomic status and parasitologically confirmed malaria or clinical malaria in children. Unadjusted and adjusted effect estimates were combined in fixed effects and random-effects meta-analyses, with a subgroup analysis for different measures of socioeconomic status. We used funnel plots and Egger's linear regression to test for publication bias. Findings: Of 4696 studies reviewed, 20 met the criteria for inclusion in the qualitative analysis, and 15 of these reported the necessary data for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The odds of malaria infection were higher in the poorest children than in the least poor children (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 1•66, 95% CI 1•35-2•05, p<0•001, I²=68%; adjusted OR 2•06, 1•42-2•97, p<0•001, I²=63%), an effect that was consistent across subgroups. Interpretation: Although we would not recommend discontinuation of existing malaria control efforts, we believe that increased investment in interventions to support socioeconomic development is warranted, since such interventions could prove highly effective and sustainable against malaria in the long term.
The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2007
Malaria's relationship with socioeconomic status at the macroeconomic level has been established. This is the first study to explore this relationship at the microeconomic (household) level and estimate the direction of association. Malaria prevalence was measured by parasitemia, and household socioeconomic status was measured using an asset based index. Results from an instrumental variable probit model suggest that socioeconomic status is negatively associated with malaria parasitemia. Other variables that are significantly associated with parasitemia include age of the individual, use of a mosquito net on the night before interview, the number of people living in the household, whether the household was residing at their farm home at the time of interview, household wall construction, and the region of residence. Matching estimators indicate that malaria parasitemia is associated with reduced household socioeconomic status.
Do malaria control interventions reach the poor? A view through the equity lens
The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2004
Malaria, more than any other disease of major public health importance in developing countries, disproportionately affects poor people, with 58% of malaria cases occurring in the poorest 20% of the world's population. If malaria control interventions are to achieve their desired impact, they must reach the poorest segments of the populations of developing countries. Unfortunately, a growing body of evidence from benefit-incidence analyses has demonstrated that many public health interventions that were designed to aid the poor are not reaching their intended target. For example, the poorest 20% of people in selected developing countries were as much as 2.5 times less likely to receive basic public health services as the least-poor 20%. In the field of malaria control, a small number of studies have begun to shed light on differences by wealth status of malaria burden and of access to treatment and prevention services. These early studies found no clear difference in fever incide...