Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 3, 2025
Visualizing Efficacy of Pesticides Against Disease Vector Mosquitoes in the Field
Published on: March 16, 2019
Estimating malaria chemoprevention and vector control coverage using program and campaign data: A scoping review of
Johanna Nice1, Honelgn Nahusenay1, Erin Eckert2,3
1MEASURE Evaluation, Centre for Applied Malaria Research and Evaluation, Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Background:
Accurate estimation of intervention coverage is a vital component of malaria program monitoring and evaluation, both for process evaluation (how well program targets are achieved), and impact evaluation (whether intervention coverage had an impact on malaria burden). There is growing interest in maximizing the utility of program data to generate interim estimates of intervention coverage in the periods between large-scale cross-sectional surveys (the gold standard). As such, this study aimed to identify relevant concepts and themes that may guide future optimization of intervention coverage estimation using routinely collected data, or data collected during and following intervention campaigns, with a particular focus on strategies to define the denominator.
Methods:
We conducted a scoping review of current practices to estimate malaria intervention coverage for insecticide-treated nets (ITNs); indoor residual spray (IRS); intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp); mass drug administration (MDA); and seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) interventions; case management was excluded. Multiple databases were searched for relevant articles published from January 1, 2015 to June 1, 2018. Additionally, we identified and included other guidance relevant to estimating population denominators, with a focus on innovative techniques.
Results:
While program data have the potential to provide intervention coverage data, there are still substantial challenges in selecting appropriate denominators. The review identified a lack of consistency in how coverage was defined and reported for each intervention type, with denominator estimation methods not clearly or consistently reported, and denominator estimates rarely triangulated with other data sources to present the feasible range of denominator values and consequently the range of likely coverage estimates.
Conclusions:
Though household survey-based estimates of intervention coverage remain the gold standard, efforts should be made to further standardize practices for generating interim measurements of intervention coverage from program data, and for estimating and reporting population denominators. This includes fully describing any projections or adjustments made to existing census or population data, exploring opportunities to validate available data by comparing with other sources, and explaining how the denominator has been restricted (or not) to reflect exclusion criteria.
