Organization Global Malaria Programme Research Articles

Contextual factors related to vector-control interventions for malaria: a scoping review and evidence and gap map protocol.

This scoping review will identify existing literature regarding contextual factors relevant to vector-control interventions to prevent malaria. We will use the findings of the scoping review to produce an interactive evidence and gap map. The map will assist in the priority setting, development, and conduct of targeted systematic reviews. These systematic reviews seek to assist the Vector Control and Insecticide Resistance Unit of the World Health Organization's Global Malaria Programme by informing recommendation development by their Guidelines Development Group. Malaria contributes substantially to the global burden of disease, with an estimated 247 million cases and 619,000 deaths in 2021. Vector-control is key in reducing malaria transmission. Vector-control interventions directly target the mosquito, reducing the potential for parasite infections. These interventions commonly include insecticides used in indoor residual spraying or insecticide-treated nets and larval source management. Several new vector-control interventions are under evaluation to complement these. In addition to estimating the effects of interventions on health outcomes, it is critical to understand how populations at risk of malaria consider them in terms of their feasibility, acceptability, and values. Eligible studies will have assessed the contextual factors of feasibility or acceptability of the interventions of interest, or the valuation of the outcomes of interests. These assessments will be from the perspective of people who receive (residents) or deliver (workers or technicians) the vector-control intervention for the purpose of preventing malaria. We will conduct this scoping review in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and report in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will construct the evidence and gap map following guidance from the Campbell Collaboration.

Evidence uptake is only part of the process: Stakeholders' insights on WHO treatment guideline recommendation processes for radical cure of P. vivax malaria.

Health policy processes should be evidence-informed, transparent and timely, but these processes are often unclear to stakeholders outside the immediate policymaking environment. We spoke to 36 international malaria stakeholders to gain insights on the processes involved in the World Health Organization's Global Malaria Programme's recommendations for their treatment guidelines of P. vivax malaria. Four key themes which drew on the 3i policy framework and Shiffman's four factors that influence global and national policymaking were identified to understand these processes. Triggers for policy change and change prioritisation, evidence types that inform policy, effects of funding on decision-making processes, and transparency and communication of these processes to external stakeholders. Results indicate that more clarity is needed on what triggers global malaria policy change processes, a clearer justification of evidence types used to inform policymaking, better understanding of the impact of the WHO's funding model on policymaking and further transparency and improved communication of these processes to external stakeholders is also needed. We suggest that global malaria policymaking could be improved by using the following strategies: ensuring that identified triggers actually initiate the policy change process, expediting decision-making timelines by developing a priority framework for assessing new evidence, adopting suitable frameworks to assess contextual evidence, and increasing the transparency of the role of non-state funders in policy decision-making processes and when publishing new recommendations.