Cost and quality of operational larviciding using drones and smartphone technology

• Published in: Malaria Journal
• Main Authors: Andy Hardy, Khamis Haji, Faiza Abbas, Juma Hassan, Abdullah Ali, Yussuf Yussuf, Jackie Cook, Laura Rosu, Arnon Houri-Yafin, Arbel Vigodny, Gregory Oakes, Silas Majambere, Eve Worrall
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2023
• Subjects: Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine; RC955-962; Infectious and parasitic diseases; RC109-216; Arctic
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-023-04713-0; https://doaj.org/article/7d83e9d032b44859bb0c6e7c4e6bd169

Abstract Background Larval Source Management (LSM) is an important tool for malaria vector control and is recommended by WHO as a supplementary vector control measure. LSM has contributed in many successful attempts to eliminate the disease across the Globe. However, this approach is typically labour-intensive, largely due to the difficulties in locating and mapping potential malarial mosquito breeding sites. Previous studies have demonstrated the potential for drone imaging technology to map malaria vector breeding sites. However, key questions remain unanswered related to the use and cost of this technology within operational vector control. Methods Using Zanzibar (United Republic of Tanzania) as a demonstration site, a protocol was collaboratively designed that employs drones and smartphones for supporting operational LSM, termed the Spatial Intelligence System (SIS). SIS was evaluated over a four-month LSM programme by comparing key mapping accuracy indicators and relative costs (both mapping costs and intervention costs) against conventional ground-based methods. Additionally, malaria case incidence was compared between the SIS and conventional study areas, including an estimation of the incremental cost-effectiveness of switching from conventional to SIS larviciding. Results The results demonstrate that the SIS approach is significantly more accurate than a conventional approach for mapping potential breeding sites: mean % correct per site: SIS = 60% (95% CI 32–88%, p = 0.02), conventional = 18% (95% CI − 3–39%). Whilst SIS cost more in the start-up phase, overall annualized costs were similar to the conventional approach, with a simulated cost per person protected per year of $3.69 ($0.32 to $15.12) for conventional and $3.94 ($0.342 to $16.27) for SIS larviciding. The main economic benefits were reduced labour costs associated with SIS in the pre-intervention baseline mapping of habitats. There was no difference in malaria case incidence between the three arms. Cost effectiveness analysis showed that SIS ...