Paper review and discussion: Routine data analysis

The following are two published articles that discuss 1. methodological considerations for the use of routine data in malaria impact analysis and 2. an example of how routine data can be used to evaluate routine intervention delivery.

Read the two papers below and answer the following questions, we will discuss these as a group.

Methodological Considerations for Use of Routine Health Information System Data to Evaluate Malaria Program Impact in an Era of Declining Malaria Transmission

1. What is the main objective of the article by Ruth A. Ashton et al. (2017)?

2. Why are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) not always appropriate or ethical for evaluating malaria interventions according to the authors?

3. What are some advantages of using HMIS data for malaria impact evaluations as discussed in the article?

4. What are the two strongest quasi-experimental designs proposed by the authors for analyzing HMIS data in malaria impact evaluations?

5. What is the main limitation of pre-post comparison designs in evaluating the impact of malaria interventions?

6. How can the internal validity of HMIS data be maximized when used for impact evaluation of malaria interventions?

7. Discuss the ethical considerations involved in choosing evaluation methodologies for public health interventions, particularly in malaria-endemic regions.

8. Evaluate the potential impact of improved HMIS data completeness and quality on malaria control and elimination efforts.

9. What are the challenges and limitations of using routine HMIS data for malaria impact evaluations, and how can these be addressed?

10. How does the adoption of electronic reporting systems like DHIS2 influence the effectiveness of HMIS data for impact evaluations?

Using routine health data to evaluate the impact of indoor residual spraying on malaria transmission in Madagascar

1. What was the main objective of the study by Emily R. Hilton et al. (2023)?

2. What are the primary malaria prevention methods mentioned in the article for Madagascar?

3. Describe the study design used by the researchers to evaluate the impact of IRS.

4. What statistical methods were used to analyze the data?

5. What was the overall impact of IRS on malaria incidence according to the study?

6. How did sustained IRS implementation over multiple years affect malaria incidence?

7. What were the findings regarding IRS coverage and its association with malaria incidence?

8. What are the key challenges and limitations of using routine health data for evaluating public health interventions, as highlighted in the study?

9. How can the findings of this study inform policy decisions for malaria control programs in Madagascar and other similar settings?

10. What are the potential implications of insecticide resistance for the effectiveness of IRS and ITNs, and how should malaria control programs address this issue?

11. Evaluate the use of propensity score matching in this study. What are its advantages and limitations in ensuring the comparability of intervention and control groups?