The case study advocated for the use of treated mosquito nets as an effective intervention for preventing malaria-related maternal deaths. An independent cost-effectiveness analysis of the intervention reveals that using treated mosquito nets is an effective intervention for reducing maternal deaths. The cost of a mosquito net is low, compared to the cost of treating a sick mother or losing an unborn child to the disease. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is $41.46 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the mother and the newborn is $1.02 per DALY averted. Similarly, the decrease in neonatal mortality is $1.08. These figures show that the cost of prevention is lower than treatment. In some African countries, expectant women get mosquito nets free. Well-wishers and international health agencies usually donate them. Since there is little or no cost associated with availing these nets to pregnant mothers, using treated mosquito nets is a cost-effective intervention for minimizing maternal deaths associated with malaria (Bhattacharya, 2013).
The proposed intervention would not work in my community because the incidence of maternal deaths, associated with malaria, is very low. Schantz-Dunn and Nour (2009) say the US has successfully eradicated malaria. Based on this background, it is difficult to convince expectant women in my community to sleep under a mosquito net if they do not see the need to do so in the first place. Therefore, this intervention would not work in my community. Nonetheless, since malaria-related neo-natal deaths in America are negligible, does it mean that the cost-effectiveness of the intervention is “0” (zero)?
References
Bhattacharya, D. (2013). Public Health Policy: Issues, Theories, and Advocacy. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schantz-Dunn, J., & Nour, N. (2009). Malaria and Pregnancy: A Global Health Perspective. Rev Obstet Gynecol, 2(3), 186–192.