Skip to main content

Table 7 Calculation of Cost-Effectiveness (CE) ratios by municipality

From: Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of Indoor Residual Spraying and distribution of Long-Lasting Insecticidal Nets in the municipality of Kouandé and municipality of Copargo in Benin

Type of zone

Boroughs

Population protected (a)

Cost per person protected (b)

Number of LLINs distributed (c)

Cost per LLINs distributed (d)

Cost savings for health providers (S1)

Cost savings for the communities (S2)

C Intv [((a*b)+(c*d))-(S1+S2)]

Number of malaria cases prevented (E)

Cost effectiveness ratio (CE)

Urban

Copargo-centre

-

2 000

13 017

2 788,5

5 045 582

1 216 396,5

30 035 926

351

85 572,4

Kouandé-centre

27 316,0

2 000

14 183

2 804,5

15 277 799

25 130 876,3

53 999 548

1 387

38 932,6

Rural

Pabégou

-

2 000

6 951

2 808,4

312 466

1 992 917,7

17 215 805

1 080

15 940,6

 

Guilmaro

19 188,0

2 000

12 151

2 814,6

141 748

1 145 220,8

71 289 236

408

174 728,5

  1. According to the results this table shows that:
  2. CE ratio of Kouandé Centre < CE ratio of Copargo Centre; LLINs + IRS strategy is the most cost-effective in urban areas.
  3. CE ratio of Guilmaro > CE ratio of Pabégou; LLINs + IRS strategy is the least cost-effective in rural areas.