Socio-economic inequity in demand for insecticide-treated nets, in-door residual house spraying, larviciding and fogging in Sudan

被引:14
作者
Onwujekwe, O
Malik, EM
Mustafa, SH
Mnzava, A
机构
[1] Univ Nigeria, Coll Med, Dept Hlth Adm & Management, Nsukka, Nigeria
[2] Natl Malaria Adm, Khartoum, Sudan
[3] WHO, Eastern Mediterranean Reg Off, Cairo, Egypt
关键词
D O I
10.1186/1475-2875-4-62
中图分类号
R51 [传染病];
学科分类号
100401 ;
摘要
Background: In order to optimally prioritize and use public and private budgets for equitable malaria vector control, there is a need to determine the level and determinants of consumer demand for different vector control tools. Objectives: To determine the demand from people of different socio-economic groups for indoor residual house-spraying (IRHS), insecticide-treated nets (ITNs), larviciding with chemicals (LWC), and space spraying/fogging (SS) and the disease control implications of the result. Methods: Ratings and levels of willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the vector control tools were determined using a random cross-sectional sample of 720 householdes drawn from two states. WTP was elicited using the bidding game. An asset-based socio-economic status (SES) index was used to explore whether WTP was related to SES of the respondents. Results: IRHS received the highest proportion of highest preferred rating (41.0%) followed by ITNs (23.1%). However, ITNs had the highest mean WTP followed by IRHS, while LWC had the least. The regression analysis showed that SES was positively and statistically significantly related to WTP across the four vector control tools and that the respondents' rating of IRHS and ITNs significantly explained their levels of WTP for the two tools. Conclusion: People were willing to pay for all the vector-control tools, but the demand for the vector control tools was related to the SES of the respondents. Hence, it is vital that there are public policies and financing mechanisms to ensure equitable provision and utilisation of vector control tools, as well as protecting the poor from cost-sharing arrangements.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]  
ARMSTRONGSCHELL.J, 2003, LANCET, V361, P561
[2]   Willingness to pay for health insurance in a developing economy. A pilot study of the informal sector of Ghana using contingent valuation [J].
Asenso-Okyere, WK ;
Osei-Akoto, I ;
Anum, A ;
Appiah, EN .
HEALTH POLICY, 1997, 42 (03) :223-237
[3]   Estimating the benefits of construction measures to mitigate earthquake risks in Iran [J].
Asgary, A ;
Willis, KG .
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B-PLANNING & DESIGN, 1997, 24 (04) :613-624
[4]  
BRIEGER WR, 1989, INT Q COMMUNITY HLTH, V19, P3
[5]  
Carson R. T., 1989, Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method
[6]  
DGEDGE M, 1999, MIM AFR MAL C DURB B, V29
[7]   CONTINGENT VALUATION - IS SOME NUMBER BETTER THAN NO NUMBER [J].
DIAMOND, PA ;
HAUSMAN, JA .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, 1994, 8 (04) :45-64
[8]   Valuing the benefits of publicly-provided health care: does 'ability to pay' preclude the use of 'willingness to pay'? [J].
Donaldson, C .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1999, 49 (04) :551-563
[9]   Limited dependent variables in willingness to pay studies: applications in health care [J].
Donaldson, C ;
Jones, AM ;
Mapp, TJ ;
Olson, JA .
APPLIED ECONOMICS, 1998, 30 (05) :667-677
[10]  
Drummond M., 2015, Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0749-3797(97)00069-X