Trends in reported malaria cases and the effects of malaria control in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Background

Considerable upscaling of malaria control efforts have taken place over the last 15 years in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the country with the second highest malaria case load after Nigeria. Malaria control interventions have been strengthened in line with the Millenium Development Goals. We analysed the effects of these interventions on malaria cases at health facility level, using a retrospective trend analysis of malaria cases between 2005 and 2014. Data were collected from outpatient and laboratory registers based on a sample of 175 health facilities that represents all eco-epidemiological malaria settings across the country.

Methods

We applied a time series analysis to assess trends of suspected and confirmed malaria cases, by health province and for different age groups. A linear panel regression model controlled for non-malaria outpatient cases, rain fall, nightlight intensity, health province and time fixed effects, was used to examine the relationship between the interventions and malaria case occurrences, as well as test positivity rates.

Results

Overall, recorded suspected and confirmed malaria cases in the DRC have increased. The sharp increase in confirmed cases from 2010 coincides with the introduction of the new treatment policy and the resulting scale-up of diagnostic testing. Controlling for confounding factors, the introduction of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) was significantly associated with the number of tested and confirmed cases. The test positivity rate fluctuated around 40% without showing any trend.

Conclusion

The sharp increase in confirmed malaria cases from 2010 is unlikely to be due to a resurgence of malaria, but is clearly associated with improved diagnostic availability, mainly the introduction of RDTs. Before that, a great part of malaria cases were treated based on clinical suspicion. This finding points to a better detection of cases that potentially contributed to improved case management. Furthermore, the expansion of diagnostic testing along with the increase in confirmed cases implies that before 2010, cases were underreported, and that the accuracy of routine data to describe malaria incidence has improved.

Assessing whether universal coverage with insecticide-treated nets has been achieved: is the right indicator being used?

Background/methods

Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) are the primary tool for malaria vector control in sub-Saharan Africa, and have been responsible for an estimated two-thirds of the reduction in the global burden of malaria in recent years. While the ultimate goal is high levels of ITN use to confer protection against infected mosquitoes, it is widely accepted that ITN use must be understood in the context of ITN availability. However, despite nearly a decade of universal coverage campaigns, no country has achieved a measured level of 80% of households owning 1 ITN for 2 people in a national survey. Eighty-six public datasets from 33 countries in sub-Saharan Africa (2005–2017) were used to explore the causes of failure to achieve universal coverage at the household level, understand the relationships between the various ITN indicators, and further define their respective programmatic utility.

Results

The proportion of households owning 1 ITN for 2 people did not exceed 60% at the national level in any survey, except in Uganda’s 2014 Malaria Indicator Survey (MIS). At 80% population ITN access, the expected proportion of households with 1 ITN for 2 people is only 60% (p = 0.003 R² = 0.92), because individuals in households with some but not enough ITNs are captured as having access, but the household does not qualify as having 1 ITN for 2 people. Among households with 7–9 people, mean population ITN access was 41.0% (95% CI 36.5–45.6), whereas only 6.2% (95% CI 4.0–8.3) of these same households owned at least 1 ITN for 2 people. On average, 60% of the individual protection measured by the population access indicator is obscured when focus is put on the household “universal coverage” indicator. The practice of limiting households to a maximum number of ITNs in mass campaigns severely restricts the ability of large households to obtain enough ITNs for their entire family.

Conclusions

The two household-level indicators—one representing minimal coverage, the other only ‘universal’ coverage—provide an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of personal protection and the success of an ITN distribution programme. Under current ITN distribution strategies, the global malaria community cannot expect countries to reach 80% of households owning 1 ITN for 2 people at a national level. When programmes assess the success of ITN distribution activities, population access to ITNs should be considered as the better indicator of “universal coverage,” because it is based on people as the unit of analysis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12936-018-2505-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Implementing Impact Evaluations of Malaria Control Interventions: Process, Lessons Learned, and Recommendations

As funding for malaria control increased considerably over the past 10 years resulting in the expanded coverage of malaria control interventions, so did the need to measure the impact of these investments on malaria morbidity and mortality. Members of the Roll Back Malaria (RBM) Partnership undertook impact evaluations of malaria control programs at a time when there was little guidance in terms of the process for conducting an impact evaluation of a national-level malaria control program. The President's Malaria Initiative (PMI), as a member of the RBM Partnership, has provided financial and technical support for impact evaluations in 13 countries to date. On the basis of these experiences, PMI and its partners have developed a streamlined process for conducting the evaluations with a set of lessons learned and recommendations. Chief among these are: to ensure country ownership and involvement in the evaluations; to engage stakeholders throughout the process; to coordinate evaluations among interested partners to avoid duplication of efforts; to tailor the evaluation to the particular country context; to develop a standard methodology for the evaluations and a streamlined process for completion within a reasonable time; and to develop tailored dissemination products on the evaluation for a broad range of stakeholders. These key lessons learned and resulting recommendations will guide future impact evaluations of malaria control programs and other health programs.