This is an archived version of this page. For more up-to-date information, see our most recent report on the evidence for LLINs from large-scale programs.
Published: November 2011
Funding for malaria control has increased substantially since 2004, making a large number of national scale-ups possible. In most cases it appears that these scale-ups have included significant funding spent on LLIN distribution but also (concurrently) significantly increased spending on other malaria control measures, making it difficult to isolate the impact of LLIN distribution.
We focus here on the case for large-scale successes in malaria control, though we address the role of LLIN distributions in passing.
Note that this is part of our broader
review of mass distribution of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets to fight malaria.
Full review of GiveWell’s research on ITNs
As noted in our
blog post, a GiveWell Research Analyst conducted a full review of the content of this page as well as the others related to LLINs (our
review of the Against Malaria Foundation and
report on long-lasting insecticide treated nets).
Reporting on large-scale successes
The World Malaria report provides
- Estimates of the coverage of malaria control interventions, by country - for example, page 20 estimates ITN coverage for each year 2000-2010 - for 44 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. (Coverage data is based on both delivery data and survey data.)
- Estimates of malaria cases and malaria deaths by country and by year.
The 2010 World Malaria Report synthesizes this data into a table showing (a) which countries have seen major reductions in malaria; (b) which countries have seen substantial (50%+ coverage) malaria control efforts.

The countries in the left-hand column appear to be considered "successes" by the report: in each of these, the report is asserting that malaria control was significant and malaria fell substantially. The report's discussion of its methodology implies that it tries to assess data quality and appropriately infer causality in listing these. The report proceeds to discuss several of these "successes": for sub-Saharan Africa it discusses Eritrea, Ethiopia (listed in the right-hand column but noted for sustaining a low malaria burden since 2005), Rwanda, Madagascar, Sao Tome and Principe, and Zanzibar (a part of Tanzania, which is listed in the right-hand column). In general, the report appears to ascribe a very high degree of importance to ITN coverage.
The profiles of high-burden countries provided at the end of the report provide information on funding allocated to ITN coverage vs. other malaria control measures, and on coverage of various malaria control measures by year. In most cases, funding allocated to ITNs is significant, but many malaria control measures at once are occurring and malaria data quality is unclear (more below), so it is difficult to say much about the relative contribution of ITNs. Rwanda, Senegal, and Ethiopia are cases where funding seems focused heavily on ITNs and where malaria appears to have declined (though Senegal is not listed as having a significant decline in malaria in the report's summary table, pictured above).
Malaria control failures?
In the World Malaria Report's summary table discussed above, there appear to be 12 countries listed as malaria control successes (left-hand column plus Ethiopia, which is listed in the right-hand column but noted for sustaining a low malaria burden since 2005). But there are also 15 countries where it appears that malaria control efforts have been strong, yet there is (to use the wording of the right-hand column header) "Limited evidence of decrease" in malaria burden.
These don't necessarily represent failures of malaria control efforts. For some of these countries, the lack of apparent decline in malaria could simply be a reflection of poor data. For others, the lack of an apparent decline in malaria could be a sign that something has gone wrong. The WHO does not appear to distinguish between the two: all countries for which there is "Limited evidence of decrease" are put in a single column.
We took our own rough look at the data provided by the report in order to see whether we could clearly distinguish between these two cases. We charted ITN coverage and malaria deaths for 2000-2009, for all countries in sub-Saharan Africa for which data in both categories is available. Our full set of charts and the Excel file used to produce them are available. In some of these charts, there is a lot of missing data, or wildly volatile data; or ITN coverage did not reach a high level. In others, it looks like malaria deaths fell substantially. But some look like they could be cases where a rapid scale-up in ITN coverage failed to result in a drop in malaria deaths - particularly Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malawi, Mali, Niger and Togo.
None of these countries are included in the profiles of high-burden countries provided at the end of the report, but 5 of the 7 are profiled in the previous year's report, and in 4 of these 5 cases (the exception being Democratic Republic of the Congo) the report speculates that increases in reported malaria burdens may reflect improved reporting rather than a failure of malaria control.
As of this writing, we remain unclear on whether there are consistent criteria for distinguishing reliable from unreliable data, and thus for distinguishing (a) successes of malaria control, (b) failures of malaria control, and (c) cases where data is inconclusive. The World Malaria Report seems to group (b) and (c) together ambiguously, making it difficult to assess the overall track record of large-scale malaria control. We have contacted authors of the World Malaria Report about this issue and expect to discuss with them in a few weeks.
Update (October 4, 2012): On January 10, 2012 we spoke with Richard Cibulskis, co-author of the World Malaria Report and compiled notes from our conversation. He referred us to the 2011 World Malaria Report for more information.
Discussion of large-scale malaria control efforts based on smaller-scale studies
Another perspective on the overall track record of malaria control efforts comes from O'Meara et al. 2010, which discusses trends in malaria burden based on studies, rather than based on data from national reporting systems. A "dramatic decline in malaria transmission in The Gambia" is attributed primarily to ITNs; declines in malaria burden in Eritrea and Zambia are attributed to a combination of interventions including ITNs (though the Eritrea decline in burden was not accompanied by a decline in malaria mortality); and Burundi is noted as a case where "No additive benefit of bednets could be detected," though we note that in the latter case, coverage of ITNs was very low over the time period discussed.
Bottom line on the connection between ITN coverage and malaria burden
We find the available data to be easily consistent with the idea that scaling up ITN coverage often - or even always - results in a reduction in malaria burden in line with what small-scale studies would predict. However, we do not find this data to provide strong affirmative evidence of this idea. We believe we will improve our understanding of this topic when we speak with the authors of the World Malaria Report.
Update (October 4, 2012): On January 10, 2012 we spoke with Richard Cibulskis, co-author of the World Malaria Report and compiled notes from our conversation. He referred us to the 2011 World Malaria Report for more information.
Sources