ADVERTISEMENT

If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.

It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.

Wiley InterScience

< Previous Abstract  |  Next Abstract >

Save Article to My Profile      Download Citation      Request Permissions

Abstract |  References  |  Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 100K)  | Related Articles | Citation Tracking

Too poor to pay: charging for insecticide-treated bednets in highland Kenya
Helen L. Guyatt 1 , Sam A. Ochola 2 and Robert W. Snow 1
  1. Wellcome Trust Research Laboratories/KEMRI, Nairobi, Kenya and Centre for Tropical Medicine, University of Oxford,    John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.   2. Division of Malaria Control, Ministry of Health, Nairobi, Kenya
Correspondence to Helen Guyatt, Wellcome Trust Research Laboratories/KEMRI, Nairobi PO Box 43640, Kenya. E-mail: hguyatt@wtnairobi.mimcom.net
Copyright 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd
KEYWORDS
insecticide-treated bednets • willingness-to-pay • affordability • Kenya • cost • expenditure

Summary

AbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionAcknowledgementsReferences

WHO has proposed malaria control as a means to alleviate poverty. One of its targets includes a 30-fold increase in insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) in the next 5 years. How this service will be financed remains unclear. In July 2000, 390 homesteads in rural highland Kenya were interviewed on their willingness to pay for ITNs. The costs to a household of protecting themselves with ITNs were compared with current household expenditure. Homesteads expressed a willingness to pay for ITNs, but the amounts offered were not sufficient to cover the costs of providing this service without donor support to meet the difference. Furthermore, as most household expenditure was allocated to basic needs these interventions were 'unaffordable'. The cost of protecting a household with ITNs would be equivalent to sending three children to primary school for a year. The aspiration by poor rural homesteads to protect themselves with ITNs is not compatible with their ability to pay. One option to have an immediate equitable impact on ITN coverage and break the cycle between malaria and poverty is to provide this service free of charge.


DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)
10.1046/j.1365-3156.2002.00929.x About DOI

Related Articles

  • Find other articles like this in Wiley InterScience
  • Find articles in Wiley InterScience written by any of the authors

Wiley InterScience is a member of CrossRef.

Cross Ref Member


E-mail alerts
Sign up for e-alerts
Sign Up Now
Wiley Medical Twitter