A few months ago, a study appeared in PLOS Medicine showing that free distribution of bednets to prevent malaria in poor countries worked better than charging a small fee. The idea behind the latter program, sometimes called social marketing, is that poor people will place a greater value on and make greater use of the bednets if they have to pay something for them.
Responding to the study, the World Health Organization in mid-August officially endorsed free distribution of bednets to all poor people in malaria-endemic countries, a change from the prior policy which only gave them out free to children under five. The policy put the WHO at odds with the Bush administration, whose malaria initiative had focused on social marketing of nets.
Today's New York Times covered the growing success of the movement toward free bednet distribution, based on reporting by a Kenya-based stringer. The story included a quote from Sen. Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma Republican with close ties to the parts of the evangelical Christian movement that has made combating malaria part of its missionary work. He called free distribution "a great move" by the WHO. "We knew social marketing doesn't work."
The story, curiously, did not report if policy is shifting at the President's malaria intiative in response to the study and WHO directive. Here's a situation where the administration's free-market ideology is at odds with the position of its Christian fundamentalist base. It will be interesting to see if Christ and science win out over mammon.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post plays catchup with the Los Angeles Times in reporting on the DDT-breast cancer link, which also has implications for malaria control now that the pesticide is making a comeback. You can find a link to the original story here.
Posted by gooznews at October 9, 2007 07:45 AMThe NYTimes article referenced here misrepresents the evidence about effective strategies to increase coverage of insecticide-treated bednets. And a closer reading of the PlOS medicine piece reveals that nearly equal proportions of the nets were distributed via free distribution as via social marketing/ commercial sale.
The preponderance of evidence shows that to achieve and maintain high rates of coverage free giveaways via campaigns should be targeted, and should be accompanied by complementary efforts at marketing (to increase demand) and efforts to develop the commercial markets (reducing taxes and tariffs on related inputs, promoting competition through procurement and the like).
Fortunately, both the WHO and the Roll Back Malaria Initiative (the lead technical agencies in the field) have come to the same conclusions, and they have issued technical guidelines that reflect this consensus.
It's a pity that the Times article may have contributed to misunderstanding about what the evidence tells us about how to increase coverage of bednets.
Links to the guidelines mentioned above and more elaborated comments on this issue can be found in my blog entry at the CGD Global Health blog.
http://blogs.cgdev.org/globalhealth/2007/10/battle_over_bednets_1.php