Skip to main content

Advertisement

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.