This is a cross-post on a comparative study conducted by Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) as part of the Global Development Network's project 'Strengthening Institutions to Improve Public Expenditure Accountability

Despite all the efforts deployed in the fight against it, Malaria still represents a major burden in Uganda as it is one of the main diseases responsible for illness and death throughout the country. According to the Malaria Control Programme of Uganda (MCP) , pregnant women, children under five years and HIV-positive people represent the most vulnerable segment of the society due to their low immunity.

In an attempt to add to the tremendous efforts directed at improving health system performance and increasing public awareness about the disease, a new nationwide indoor residual spraying program was announced by the Ministry of Health  on September 2nd, 2013. Such program would cost the Government of Uganda around US$ 75 million.

As part of the Global Development Network’s project Strengthening Institutions to Improve Public Expenditure Accountability, aiming to help governments utilize their budgets more efficiently, the Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) recently conducted a comparative study on the cost-effectiveness of indoor residual spraying and insecticide treated nets. 

The Ministry of Health announced on 2 September, 2013  that the Government of Uganda is to spend UGX 188 billion (about US$ 75 million) on a new nationwide program to spray households as a means of controlling the spread of malaria parasites. Previously, the government experimented with indoor residual spraying (IRS) in some parts of the country but the program was abandoned due to widespread concerns regarding the negative perception about the environmental friendliness of the chemical used then (DDT).

The reintroduction and now potential scaling up of IRS across Uganda is partly due to the fact that malaria remains the largest contributor to the burden of disease in Uganda; research showing that IRS remains the most cost-effective strategy for malaria control; the adoption of a new but more expensive chemical (Carbamates also known as Bendiocarb) as the preferred choice of spray.

Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC)  recently conducted a comparative study on the cost-effectiveness of indoor residual spraying and insecticide treated nets. The study is part of the Global Development Network’s project Strengthening Institutions to Improve Public Expenditure Accountability which aims to help governments utilize their budgets more efficiently.

First posted on October 8th 2013 by gdnetblog.org

Sign in or Register

Already a member?

Sign in

Or sign in with your account on:

Not a member yet?

Register
RSS Feed