Background: The outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 has led to numerous cases and deaths globally. Ghana and Benin are two Africa countries which prioritized vaccination, introducing them as early as March 2021 alongside non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to mitigate the epidemiological and socio-economic impact of COVID-19. This study quantified the impact of vaccination coverage on cases, deaths averted, hospital resources, and economic impacts compared to a scenario without vaccination. Methods: This study adopted the COVID-19 International Modelling Consortium (CoMo) model to estimate COVID-19 transmission dynamics, disease burden, and the impact of vaccination scenarios accounting for NPIs at varying intensity. We assessed the impact of COVID-19 vaccination programs by estimating additional cases and deaths averted if no vaccines were distributed. We assumed a 78% vaccine efficacy and conducted sensitivity analyses by varying vaccination coverage targets above the 20% set by COVAX and 40% by WHO by the end of 2022. A cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 vaccination in Ghana and Benin was conducted from societal and health system perspectives. Our analysis considered vaccination coverage target of 20% - 80%. Results: Vaccinating approximately 40% of the population in Ghana and Benin, as recommended by WHO, would reduce the total predicted reported cases from 1.6% (95% CrI: 1.1, 1.9) to 0.7% (95% CrI: 0.6, 1.3) and avert additional 3585 (95% CrI: 1793-4066) and 33 COVID-19 deaths between April 2020 to December 2022. For reported+unreported cases, it would reduce from 35.3% (95% CrI: 20.5, 43.7) to 18.8% (95% CrI: 13, 33) in Ghana and from 1.5% (95% CrI: 0.4, 8.1) to 1.0% (95% CrI: 0.5, 15.3) in Benin. In both countries, at 40% vaccination coverage compared to no vaccination, vaccination is cost-effective from both health system and societal perspectives. Also, in Ghana vaccination up to 70% coverage is still cost-effective from the societal perspective. In Benin, any coverage beyond 40% of the population was not cost-effective. Conclusion: Higher vaccine coverage alone, does not necessarily lead to greater health or economic benefits. The cost-effectiveness of increasing COVID-19 vaccine coverage is influenced by coverage rates, national context and scope of costs considered. Overall, vaccination is only cost-effective when it is done together with adherence to COVID-19 prevention guidelines, and that should be the priority of policymakers for the two countries.

Introduction:Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, defined a transition roadmap for countries receiving funding support based on their income status projections. According to the latest projections, Kenya will complete their transition from vaccine funding in 2029. While eligible countries are kept informed and supported for a smooth transition process, the extent to which countries understand the significant implications of a complete end of GAVI support on immunization service delivery varies. Furthermore, whereas studies have been conducted to assess national preparedness for transition, there is a paucity of data on the understanding of subnational authorities of this process. In this study, we explored the perspectives of county-level stakeholders on Kenya's preparedness for GAVI transition. Methods:using purposive sampling, 77 senior county officials from 15 counties were selected for in-depth interviews. Data were collected using a semi-structured interview guide, transcribed, and thematically analysed. Ethical approval for the study was granted by Moi University Institutional Ethics and Research Committee. Results:findings reveal a consensus among respondents that both national and county governments are not fully prepared for the end of the Gavi Alliance. Concerns were highlighted around a lack of knowledge about vaccine costs, post-transition funding sources, and potential disruptions in immunization services. Respondents advocated for a phased transition, continued donor support, clear funding allocation, and legislative measures to ensure financial sustainability. Moreover, advocacy and awareness efforts, capacity building, and a robust legal framework were emphasized as essential for a smooth transition. Conclusion:after the end of the financial support provided by Gavi Alliance, Kenya's immunization bill is expected to be significant. This study underscores the importance of effectively engaging the subnational (county) level authorities. Successful transition from Gavi's support requires a strategy that promotes awareness and improves communication regarding the expected impact of the impending transition from Gavi on sustainable immunization financing in Kenya.

There has been increasing recognition of vaccine access challenges in middle-income countries and the need for increased action, particularly in countries that are not eligible for or have transitioned out of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance support. These countries’ immunization systems are more vulnerable than ever as the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbates existing programme challenges, increasing the risk of delayed vaccine introductions, backsliding immunization coverage rates, and increased coverage inequity. The potential health and equity impact of improving immunization outcomes in middle-income countries is substantial. Modelling suggests that the introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and vaccines for rotavirus and human papillomavirus in this set of Gavi-transitioned and non-Gavieligible middle-income countries in 2020 could have saved an estimated 70,000 lives if 90 % coverage had been reached. Further, increasing coverage for already-introduced vaccines to 90 % could have saved an additional estimated 16,000 lives. Over the past decade, stakeholders have made considerable efforts to identify immunization challenges in middle-income countries as documented in the 2015 SAGE-endorsed Shared Partner Middle-Income Country Strategy. In the coming decade, new global platforms like Gavi 5.0 and the Immunization Agenda 2030 provide opportunities to align on MIC strategies and provide coordinated global support to middle-income countries. The international COVID-19 pandemic response has the potential to lay the foundation for long term support beyond the scope of COVID-19 to non-Gavi eligible middle-income countries. Meanwhile regional mechanisms to address immunization barriers in middle-income countries have grown in number and strength, offering sustainable platforms for cross-country collaboration and the provision of tailored technical support. To ensure that these opportunities are successfully acted upon and that middle-income countries achieve the Immunization Agenda 2030 goals, comprehensive, multi-stakeholder consultations were conducted to identify areas of action with the greatest potential to accelerate immunization progress. Stakeholders should work together to put these findings, highlighted in this paper, into action, adapting their approaches to specific country contexts and learning from and building on existing efforts.

Vaccines and vitamin A supplementation (VAS) are financed by donors in several countries, indicating that challenges remain with achieving sustainable government financing of these critical health commodities. This qualitative study aimed to explore political economy variables of actors' interests, roles, power and commitment to ensure government financing of vaccines and VAS. A total of 77 interviews were conducted in Burundi, Comoros, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Malawi and Zimbabwe. Governments and development partners had similar interests. Donor commitment to vaccines and VAS was sometimes dependent on the priorities and political situation of the donor country. Governments' commitment to financing vaccines was demonstrated through policy measures, such as enactment of immunization laws. Explicit government financial commitment to VAS was absent in all six countries. Some development partners were able to influence governments directly via allocation of health funding while others influenced indirectly through coordination, consolidation and networks. Government power was exercised through multiple systemic and individual processes, including hierarchy, bureaucracy in governance and budgetary process, proactiveness of Ministry of Health officials in engaging with Ministry of Finance, and control over resources. Enablers that were likely to increase government commitment to financing vaccines and VAS included emerging reforms, attention to the voice of citizens and improvements in the domestic economy that in turn increased government revenues. Barriers identified were political instability, health sector inefficiencies, overly complicated bureaucracy, frequent changes of health sector leadership and non-health competing needs. Country governments were aware of their role in financing vaccines, but only a few had made tangible efforts to increase government financing. Discussions on government financing of VAS were absent. Development partners continue to influence government health commodity financing decisions. The political economy environment and contextual factors work together to facilitate or impede domestic financing.

Background: This study estimated cost of COVID-19 vaccine introduction and deployment in Ghana. Methods: Using the WHO-UNICEF COVID-19 Vaccine Introduction and deployment Costing (CVIC) tool Ghana's Ministry of Health Technical Working Group for Health Technology Assessment (TWG-HTA) in collaboration with School of Public Health, University of Ghana, organized an initial two-day workshop that brought together partners to deliberate and agree on input parameters to populate the CVIC tool. A further 2-3 days validation with the Expanded Program of Immunization (EPI) and other partners to finalize the analysis was done. Three scenarios, with different combinations of vaccine products and delivery modalities, as well as time period were analyzed. The scenarios included AstraZeneca (40%), Johnson & Johnson (J&J) (30%), Moderna, Pfizer, and Sputnik V at 10% each; with primary schedule completed by second half of 2021 (Scenario 1); AstraZeneca (30%), J&J (40%), Moderna, Pfizer, and Sputnik V at 10% each with primary schedule completed by first half of 2022 (Scenario 2); and equal distribution (20%) among AstraZeneca, J&J, Moderna, Pfizer, and Sputnik V with primary schedule completed by second half of 2022 (Scenario 3). Results: The estimated total cost of COVID-19 vaccination ranges between $348.7 and $436.1 million for the target population of 17.5 million. These translate into per person completed primary schedule cost of $20.9-$26.2 and per dose (including vaccine cost) of $10.5-$13.1. Again, per person completed primary schedule excluding vaccine cost was $4.5 and $4.6, thus per dose excluding vaccine also ranged from $2.2 - $2.3. The main cost driver was vaccine doses, including shipping, which accounts for between 78% and 83% of total cost. Further, an estimated 8,437-10,247 vaccinators (non-FTEs) would be required during 2021-2022 to vaccinate using a mix of delivery strategies, accounting for 8-10% of total cost.

When seeking to ensure financial sustainability of a health programme, existence of a line item in the Ministry of Health (MOH) budget is often seen as an essential, first step. We used immunization as a reference point for cross-country comparison of budgeting methods in Sub-Saharan African countries. Study objectives were to (1) verify the number and types of budget line items for immunization services, (2) compare budget execution with budgeted amounts and (3) compare values with annual immunization expenditures reported to WHO and UNICEF. MOH budgets for 2016 and/or 2017 were obtained from 33 countries. Despite repeated attempts, budgets could not be retrieved from five countries (Chad, Eritrea, Guinea Bissau, Somalia and South Sudan), and we were only able to gather budget execution from eight countries. The number of immunization line items ranged between 0 and 42, with a median of eight. Immunization donor funding was included in 10 budgets. Differences between budgeted amounts and expenditures reported to WHO and UNICEF were greater than 50% in 66% of countries. Immunization budgets per child in the birth cohort ranged from US$1.37 (Democratic Republic of Congo) to US$67.51 (Central African Republic), with an average of US$10.05. Out of the total Government health budget, immunization comprised between 0.04% (Madagascar) and 5.67% (Benin), with an average of 1.98% across the countries, when excluding on-budget donor funds. It was challenging to obtain MOH budgets in many countries and it was largely impossible to access budget execution reports, preventing us from assessing budget credibility. Large differences between budgets and expenditures reported to WHO and UNICEF are likely due to inconsistent interpretations of reporting requirements, diverse approaches to reporting donor funds, challenges in extracting the relevant information from public financial management systems and broader issues of public financial management capacity in MOH staff.

Background: Malaria remains a major cause of burden of illness in sub-Saharan Africa. The objectives of this study were to measure the costs of a malaria case in terms of costs borne by households affected and healthcare systems (either ambulatory or hospitalized) comprehensively in a number of countries in SubSaharan Africa, collecting data prospectively and retrospectively using a common protocol, which included data on lost productivity and unpaid time of caregivers. Methods: We conducted community-based and health care facility-based studies on disease burden and cost of malaria disease in four sub-Sahara Africa (SSA), namely: Burkina-Faso, Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda. These were both prospective and retrospective studies that used a common protocol. The study population included children under five years old with febrile illness that met the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for malaria. To standardize measurements of economic impact across countries and facilitate comparisons and interpretations, we expressed all direct and indirect costs in 2019. The study incorporated empirical values for most of the components of health services used, and most of their unit costs. Furthermore, it examined actual medical practices, rather than the more expensive setting of a formal prospective clinical study of laboratory confirmed malaria disease. We used the unit costs are they were in 2010 and 2011, when the field work was conducted, but then discounted them to the current year of 2019. Findings: The total household costs were highest in Ghana and lowest in Uganda. Health systems costs are significantly higher in Nigeria. As opposed to the three other countries, indirect costs in Ghana are lower than direct costs. It was found that in general richer households tended to spend more on treating OPD and IPD cases in the four countries and a majority of Ghana respondents were insured (67%) while in the three other countries, out of pockets spending were high (from different sources), followed by subsidies from social institutions. Conclusion: Malaria remains a major contributor the high economic burden of disease in SSA. The reasons that our estimates are higher than previous estimates could be the fact that we included as much as possible costs incurred by households before arriving at the facility where they were interviewed, comprising informal sector payment. Malaria endemic countries should not relent, but should rather redouble efforts to control and eliminate malaria as a major public health burden in SSA.

National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) provide independent, evidence-informed advice to assist their governments in immunization policy formation. However, many NITAGs face challenges in fulfilling their roles. Hence the many requests for formation of a network linking NITAGs together so they can learn from each other. To address this request, the Health Policy and Institutional Development (HPID) Center (a WHO Collaborating Center at the Agence de Médecine Préventive - AMP), in collaboration with WHO, organized a meeting in Veyrier-du-Lac, France, on 11 and 12 May 2016, to establish a Global NITAG Network (GNN). The meeting focused on two areas: the requirements for (a) the establishment of a global NITAG collaborative network; and (b) the global assessment/evaluation of the performance of NITAGs. 35 participants from 26 countries reviewed the proposed GNN framework documents and NITAG performance evaluation. Participants recommended that a GNN should be established, agreed on its governance, function, scope and a proposed work plan as well as setting a framework for NITAG evaluation.

Background:National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) are established by national authorities to provide them with independent, bias-free, objective, and evidence-based advice on vaccines and immunization challenges. As of December 2015, 125 countries have reported having set up an NITAG. The Health Policy and Institutional Development Center at the Agence de Médecine Préventive, a World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborative Center for evidence-informed immunization, through its Supporting Independent Immunization and Vaccine Advisory Committees (SIVAC) Initiative project, provides assistance to low- and middle-income countries in the establishment and strengthening of their NITAGs. The Indonesian NITAG (ITAGI) was formed in December 2006 and Uganda's (UNITAG) was formed in November 2014. Both Uganda and Indonesia have introduced inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) as part of the Global Polio Eradication and Endgame Strategic Plan (the Endgame plan). The authors reflect on the process and the role played by NITAGs in the introduction of IPV in the routine immunization program and the lessons learned. Methods:This commentary is a reflection of the authors' experience on NITAG's role as observed in 2 particular local settings and applied to a global public health issue, the polio eradication Endgame plan. The reflection is backed up by the relevant (policy and technical) documents on polio eradication, along with minutes and reports from countries' ministries of health, immunization programs, WHO, and NITAGs. Results:NITAGs are valuable tools for ministries of health to ensure sustainable, evidence-informed immunization policies that are trusted and accepted by their communities. Early engagement with NITAGs also ensures that the adoption of strategies addressing global public health threats at the country level reinforces the national immunization programs. On the other end, when NITAGs are proactive and forward-thinking, they can contribute to a smooth and effective introduction of the above-mentioned strategies. Time and resources are key factors to ensure optimal performance of NITAGs.

National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) are facing increasingly complex vaccination issues together with a lack of human resources for evidence assessment and data analysis. One way to reduce these burdens could be to share some of the preparatory work across NITAGs. We conducted an inventory of all the advisory reports issued by five well-established European NITAGs from 2011 to 2014 to assess overlaps in issues and activities. A total of 104 advisory reports were retrieved. Advisory reports on the same issues were compared to identify overlapping activities and processes. Advisory reports issued by the five NITAGs showed little overlap in issues and processes. A first step towards efficient collaboration would be to establish an independent platform to provide insight into each NITAG's work and to facilitate the exchange of agendas, assessment frameworks and evidence.

Many experts on vaccination are convinced that efforts should be made to encourage increased collaboration between National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups on immunization (NITAGs) worldwide. International meetings were held in Berlin, Germany, in 2010 and 2011, to discuss improvement of the methodologies for the development of evidence-based vaccination recommendations, recognizing the need for collaboration and/or sharing of resources in this effort. A third meeting was held in Paris, France, in December 2014, to consider the design of specific practical activities and an organizational structure to enable effective and sustained collaboration. The following conclusions were reached:(i)The proposed collaboration needs a core functional structure and the establishment or strengthening of an international network of NITAGs.(ii)Priority subjects for collaborative work are background information for recommendations, systematic reviews, mathematical models, health economic evaluations and establishment of common frameworks and methodologies for reviewing and grading the evidence.(iii)The programme of collaborative work should begin with participation of a limited number of NITAGs which already have a high level of expertise. The amount of joint work could be increased progressively through practical activities and pragmatic examples. Due to similar priorities and already existing structures, this should be organized at regional or subregional level. For example, in the European Union a project is funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) with the aim to set up a network for improving data, methodology and resource sharing and thereby supporting NITAGs. Such regional networking activities should be carried out in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO).(iv)A global steering committee should be set up to promote international exchange between regional networks and to increase the involvement of less experienced NITAGs. NITAGs already collaborate at the global level via the NITAG Resource Centre, a web-based platform developed by the Health Policy and Institutional Development Unit (WHO Collaborating Centre) of the Agence de Médecine Préventive (AMP-HPID). It would be appropriate to continue facilitating the coordination of this global network through the AMP-HPID NITAG Resource Centre.(v)While sharing work products and experiences, each NITAG would retain responsibility for its own decision-making and country-specific recommendations.

To empower governments to formulate rational policies without pressure from any group, and to increase the use of evidence-based decision-making to adapt global recommendations on immunization to their local context, the WHO has recommended on multiple occasions that countries should establish National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs). The World Health Assembly (WHA) reinforced those recommendations in 2012 when Member States endorsed the Decade of Vaccines Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP). NITAGs are multidisciplinary groups of national experts responsible for providing independent, evidence-informed advice to health authorities on all policy-related issues for all vaccines across all populations. In 2012, according to the WHO-UNICEF Joint Reporting Form, among 57 countries eligible for immunization program financial support from the GAVI Alliance, only 9 reported having a functional NITAG. Since 2008, the Supporting Independent Immunization and Vaccine Advisory Committees (SIVAC) Initiative (at the Agence de Médecine Préventive or AMP) in close collaboration with the WHO and other partners has been working to accelerate and systematize the establishment of NITAGs in low- and middle-income countries. In addition to providing direct support to countries to establish advisory groups, the initiative also supports existing NITAGs to strengthen their capacity in the use of evidence-based processes for decision-making aligned with international standards. After 5 years of implementation and based on lessons learned, we recommend that future efforts should target both expanding new NITAGs and strengthening existing NITAGs in individual countries, along three strategic lines: (i) reinforce NITAG institutional integration to promote sustainability and credibility, (ii) build technical capacity within NITAG secretariats and evaluate NITAG performance, and (iii) increase networking and regional collaborations. These should be done through the development and dissemination of tools and guidelines, and information through a variety of adapted mechanisms.

Informations relatives à l’article Résumé _______________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Historique de l’article : Reçu le 11 juillet 2014. Reçu dans sa version révisée le 13 décembre 2014. Accepté le 15 décembre 2014. Disponible en ligne le 26 décembre 2014. ________________________________________________ Mots clés : Vaccination Comité consultatif Groupe Technique Consultatif national pour la Vaccination (GTCV) Politique fondée sur des données factuelles Processus décisionnel Politique de santé Renforcement des capacités Nouveaux vaccins et vaccins sous-utilisés Introduction de vaccins Vaccination systématique Afin de donner aux gouvernements les moyens de formuler des politiques rationnelles indépendamment de toute pression et de promouvoir les processus décisionnels fondés sur des données factuelles en vue d’adapter localement les recommandations mondiales sur la vaccination, l’OMS a recommandé à de nombreuses reprises aux pays d’établir des Groupes Techniques Consultatifs nationaux pour la Vaccination (GTCV). L’Assemblée mondiale de la Santé (AMS) a entériné ces recommandations en 2012, lorsque ses pays membres ont adopté le Plan d’action mondial pour les vaccins (Global Vaccine Action Plan, GVAP) dans le cadre de la Décennie de la vaccination. Les GTCV sont des comités multidisciplinaires composés d’experts nationaux, qui s’appuient sur des données factuelles pour conseiller en toute indépendance les autorités de santé sur leurs politiques vaccinales applicables à tous les groupes de population. En 2012, d’après le formulaire conjoint de déclaration OMS/UNICEF, parmi les 57 pays pouvant prétendre à un soutien financier de l’Alliance GAVI pour leurs programmes de vaccination, seuls 9 ont déclaré posséder un GTCV opérationnel. Depuis 2008, l’Initiative SIVAC (Supporting Independent Immunization and Vaccine Advisory Committees), un programme de l’Agence de Médecine Préventive (AMP), collabore étroitement avec l’OMS et d’autres partenaires en vue d’accélérer et de systématiser la création de GTCV dans les pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire. En plus d’apporter un soutien direct aux pays pour l’établissement de leurs groupes consultatifs, SIVAC aide les GTCV existants à renforcer leur capacité à employer des processus décisionnels fondés sur des données factuelles et conformes aux normes internationales. Nous nous appuyons sur les enseignements tirés de ces cinq années de travail pour recommander d’orienter les efforts sur la création de nouveaux GTCV et sur le renforcement des capacités des groupes consultatifs existants, en suivant trois axes stratégiques : i) renforcer l’intégration institutionnelle des GTCV pour les pérenniser et assoir leur crédibilité, ii) renforcer les capacités techniques des secrétariats des GTCV et évaluer les résultats de ces derniers, et iii) développer le travail en réseau et les collaborations régionales. À cette fin, il conviendra d’élaborer et de diffuser des outils, des directives et des informations au travers de dispositifs adaptés. © 2014 Les auteurs. Publié par Elsevier Ltd. Cet article est en accès libre sous licence CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

BACKGROUNDGiven the enormous economic burden of malaria in Nigeria and in sub-Saharan Africa, it is important to determine how different population groups cope with payment for malaria treatment. This paper provides new information about the differences in household coping mechanisms for expenditures on malaria treatment.METHODSThe study was undertaken in two communities in Southeast Nigeria. A total of 200 exit interviews were conducted with patients and their care givers after consultation and treatment for malaria. The methods that were used to cope with payments for malaria treatment expenditures were determined. The coping mechanisms were disaggregated by socio-economic status (SES).RESULTSThe average expenditure to treat malaria was $22.9, which was all incurred through out-of- pocket payments. Some households used more than one coping method but none reported using health insurance. It was found that use of household savings (79.5%) followed by reduction in other household expenses (22.5%) were the most common coping methods. The reduction of other household expenses was significantly more prevalent with the average (Q4) SES group (p<0.05). .CONCLUSIONPeople used different coping strategies to take care of their malaria expenditures, which are mostly paid out-of-pocket. The average socio-economic household had to forego other basic household expenditures in order to cope with malaria illness; otherwise there were no other significant differences in the coping mechanisms across the different SES groups. This could be indicative of the catastrophic nature of malaria treatment expenditures. Interventions that will reduce the burden of malaria expenditures on all households, within the context of Universal Health Coverage are needed so as to decrease the economic burden of malaria on households.

It has long been acknowledged that there is little interaction between National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) in the North and even less between those in the North and those in the South. Three international meetings of NITAGs recommended establishing an international network of NITAGs centred on a core functional structure and platform to facilitate future exchanges. The SIVAC Initiative (as part of a WHO Collaborating Center) followed-up with this recommendation, and launched an interactive platform involving all NITAGs worldwide in an active network and open collaboration: the NITAG Resource Center (NRC), accessible at http://www.nitag-resource.org. The NRC offers NITAG members and secretariats a centralized access to NITAG recommendations from around the world, systematic reviews, scientific publications, technical reports, updates from partners, and upcoming immunization events. A dedicated network manager will proactively update all contents through a strong network of regional and national focal points. The NRC is a first step towards a more fruitful and global collaboration between NITAGs.

a Agencia de Medicina Preventiva, 164 Rue de Vaugirard, 75015 París, Francia b Asesor Independiente, Tranchepied, 1

Background: The provision of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) is widely accepted in Burkina Faso thanks to large-scale national distribution campaigns. However, household also use other methods of prevention. Thus far, there is little knowledge about the expenditures of these malaria prevention methods, particularly in combination with the national interventions. This paper presents the utilization levels and expenditures of malaria prevention tools in Burkina Faso and explores the potential inequality in ownership.Methods: The analysis is based on a cross-sectional survey, conducted during the 2010 high transmission season from July to September in the Nanoro Health and Demographic Surveillance Site. Following a systematic sampling technique, the survey covers 500 households with children under 5 years of age from 24 villages. In the survey, households were asked about expenditures on malaria prevention methods in the month preceding the survey. This includes expenditure on coils, indoor spraying, aerosols, repellents, herbs, cleaning of the environment and clearing of the vegetation. The data analysis was conducted with SPSS taking into account the socio-economic status (SES) of the household to examine any differences in the utilization of the prevention method and expenditure quintiles. An asset-based index, created through principal components analysis (PCA), was used to categorize the households into quintiles.Findings: Of the households surveyed, 45% used one preventive measure in the past month; 29% used two measures; and 25% used three or more measures. A significant association was found between the number of prevention measures and the SES of the household (p < 0.05). The majority of households owned at least one insecticide treated net (ITN) (98%). Among households that used ITN, 53.8% used methods other than bed nets. The majority of households paid nothing for malaria prevention.Conclusion: Most of the households received bed nets and other preventive method for free. There is equity in expenditures across SES groups. Free distribution of ITNs ensured that there was equity in ITN ownership among households. More research on the possibility of increasing access to other locally relevant methods of malaria control that proved to be effective is need.

Background: Many households own, use and spend money on many malaria preventive tools, some of which are inappropriate and ineffective in preventing malaria. This is despite the promotion of use of effective preventive methods such as Insecticide treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual house spraying (IRHS). The use of these ineffective methods imposes some economic burden on households with no resultant reduction in the risk of developing malaria. Hence, global and national targets in use of various effective malaria preventive toools are yet to be achieved in Nigeria. This paper presents new evidence on the differential use and expenditures on effective and non-effective malaria preventive methods in Nigeria.Methods: Semi-structured interviewer administered pre-tested questionnaire were used to collect data from 500 households from two communities in Enugu state, Nigeria. The two study communities were selected randomly while the households were selected systematically. Information was collected on demography, malaria status of children under 5 within the past month, types of malaria preventive tools used by households and how much was spent on these, the per capita household food expenditure and assets ownership of respondents to determine their socio-economic status.Results: There was high level of ownership of ITNs (73%) and utilization (71.2%), with 40% utilization by children under 5. There were also appreciable high levels of use of other malaria preventive tools such as window and door nets, indoor spray, aerosol spray and cleaning the environment. No significant inequity was found in ownership and utilization of ITNs and in use of other preventive methods across socioeconomic groups. However, households spent a lot of money on other preventive tools and average expenditures were between N0.83-N172 ($ 0.005-$ 1.2) The richest households spent the most on window and door nets (P = 0.04).Conclusion: High levels of use and expenditure on ITNs and other malaria preventive tools exist. A programmatic challenge will involve designing ways and means of converting some of the inefficient and inappropriate expenditures on many ineffective malaria preventive tools to proven cost-effective methods such as ITNs and IRHS. This will help to achieve universal coverage with malaria preventive tools.

The majority of industrialized and some developing countries have established National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs). To enable systematic global monitoring of the existence and functionality of NITAGs, in 2011, WHO and UNICEF included related questions in the WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form (JRF) that provides an official means to globally collect indicators of immunization program performance. These questions relate to six basic process indicators.According to the analysis of the 2013 JRF, data for 2012, notable progress was achieved between 2010 and 2012 and by the end of 2012, 99 countries (52%) reported the existence of a NITAG with a formal legislative or administrative basis (with a high of 86% in the Eastern Mediterranean Region - EMR), among the countries that reported data in the NITAG section of the JRF.There were 63 (33%) countries with a NITAG that met six process indicators (47% increase over the 43 reported in 2010) including a total of 38 developing countries. 11% of low income countries reported a NITAG that meets all six process criteria, versus 29% of middle income countries and 57% of the high income ones. Countries with smaller populations reported the existence of a NITAG that meets all six process criteria less frequently than more populated countries (23% for less populated countries versus 43% for more populated ones).However, progress needs to be accelerated to reach the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) target of ensuring all countries have support from a NITAG. The GVAP represents a major opportunity to boost the institutionalization of NITAGs. A special approach needs to be explored to allow small countries to benefit from sub-regional or other countries advisory groups. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND:Malaria is the number one public health problem in Nigeria, responsible for about 30% of deaths in under-fives and 25% of deaths in infants and 11% maternal mortality. This study estimated the economic burden of malaria in Nigeria using the cost of illness approach.METHODS:A cross-sectional study was undertaken in two malaria holo-endemic communities in Nigeria, involving both community and hospital based surveys. A random sample of 500 households was interviewed using interviewer administered questionnaire. In addition, 125 exit interviews for inpatient department stays (IPD) and outpatient department visits (OPD) were conducted and these were complemented with data abstraction from 125 patient records.RESULTS:From the household survey, over half of the households (57.6%) had an episode of malaria within one month to the date of the interview. The average household expenditure per case was 12.57US$ and 23.20US$ for OPD and IPD respectively. Indirect consumer costs of treatment were higher than direct consumer medical costs. From a health system perspective, the recurrent provider costs per case was 30.42 US$ and 48.02 US$ for OPD and IPD while non recurrent provider costs were 133.07US$ and 1857.15US$ for OPD and IPD. The mode of payment was mainly through out-of-pocket spending (OOPS).CONCLUSION:Private expenditure on treatment of malaria constitutes a high economic burden to households and to the health system. Removal of user fees and interventions that will decrease the use of OOPS for treatment of malaria will significantly decrease the economic burden of malaria to both households and the health system.