How do malaria testing and treatment subsidies affect drug shop client expenditures? A cross-sectional analysis in Western Kenya.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how drug shop clients' expenditures are affected by subsidies for malaria diagnostic testing and for malaria treatment, and also to examine how expenditures vary by clients' malaria test result and by the number of medications they purchased. DESIGN: Secondary cross-sectional analysis of survey responses from a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The study was conducted in twelve private drug shops in Western Kenya. PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed 836 clients who visited the drug shops between March 2018 and October 2019 for a malaria-like illness. This included children >1 year of age if they were physically present and accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. INTERVENTIONS: Subsidies for malaria diagnostic testing and for malaria treatment (conditional on a positive malaria test result). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Expenditures at the drug shop in Kenya shillings (Ksh). RESULTS: Clients who were randomised to a 50% subsidy for malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) spent approximately Ksh23 less than those who were randomised to no RDT subsidy (95% CI (-34.6 to -10.7), p=0.002), which corresponds approximately to the value of the subsidy (Ksh20). However, clients randomised to receive free treatment (artemisinin combination therapies (ACTs)) if they tested positive for malaria had similar spending levels as those randomised to a 67% ACT subsidy conditional on a positive test. Expenditures were also similar by test result, however, those who tested positive for malaria bought more medications than those who tested negative for malaria while spending approximately Ksh15 less per medication (95% CI (-34.7 to 3.6), p=0.102). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that subsidies for diagnostic health products may result in larger household savings than subsidies on curative health products. A better understanding of how people adjust their behaviours and expenditures in response to subsidies could improve the design and implementation of subsidies for health products. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03810014.

Cohort Profile: Perinatal depression and child socioemotional development ; the Bachpan cohort study from rural Pakistan.

PURPOSE: This is a prospective pregnancy-birth cohort designed to investigate the effects of depression on socioemotional development of children. Perinatal depression is a risk factor for poor child development and for many it has a recurring chronic course. Thus, the exposure to depression can continue through the early years of the child with detrimental developmental outcomes. PARTICIPANTS: Between October 2014 and February 2016, we recruited 1154 pregnant women from a rural subdistrict of Pakistan. Data include longitudinal and repeated measures of maternal psychosocial measures and child growth, cognitive and socioemotional measures. Follow-up include mother-child dyad assessments at 3rd, 6th, 12th, 24th and 36th months of child age. All these follow-ups are community based at the household level. We have competed baseline assessment. FINDINGS TO DATE: Of the eligible dyads, we followed 885 (76.6%), 929 (91%) and 940 (93.3%) at 3, 6 and 12 months post-childbirth. We include a subsample mother-child dyad DNA and inflammatory biomarkers, 73 and 104, respectively. FUTURE PLANS: While we continue to do 24-month and 36-month follow-up assessments, we plan to follow these mother-child dyads up to the age of 7-8 years with some children being exposed to at least 1 year of school environment. Investigators interested in learning more about the study can contact (jmaselko@unc.edu) and (siham.sikander@hdrfoundation.org).

Do topical repellents divert mosquitoes within a community? Health equity implications of topical repellents as a mosquito bite prevention tool.

OBJECTIVES: Repellents do not kill mosquitoes--they simply reduce human-vector contact. Thus it is possible that individuals who do not use repellents but dwell close to repellent users experience more bites than otherwise. The objective of this study was to measure if diversion occurs from households that use repellents to those that do not use repellents. METHODS: The study was performed in three Tanzanian villages using 15%-DEET and placebo lotions. All households were given LLINs. Three coverage scenarios were investigated: complete coverage (all households were given 15%-DEET), incomplete coverage (80% of households were given 15%-DEET and 20% placebo) and no coverage (all households were given placebo). A crossover study design was used and coverage scenarios were rotated weekly over a period of ten weeks. The placebo lotion was randomly allocated to households in the incomplete coverage scenario. The level of compliance was reported to be close to 100%. Mosquito densities were measured through aspiration of resting mosquitoes. Data were analysed using negative binomial regression models. FINDINGS: Repellent-users had consistently fewer mosquitoes in their dwellings. In villages where everybody had been given 15%-DEET, resting mosquito densities were fewer than half that of households in the no coverage scenario (Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR]=0.39 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-0.60); p<0.001). Placebo-users living in a village where 80% of the households used 15%-DEET were likely to have over four-times more mosquitoes (IRR=4.17; 95% CI: 3.08-5.65; p<0.001) resting in their dwellings in comparison to households in a village where nobody uses repellent. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that high coverage of repellent use could significantly reduce man-vector contact but with incomplete coverage evidence suggests that mosquitoes are diverted from households that use repellent to those that do not. Therefore, if repellents are to be considered for vector control, strategies to maximise coverage are required.