Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Malaria Journal and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research

Integrated vector management for malaria control in Uganda: knowledge, perceptions and policy development

Clifford M Mutero1*, Dieter Schlodder1, Narcis Kabatereine2 and Randall Kramer3

Author Affiliations

1 Centre for Sustainable Malaria Control and School of Health Systems and Public Health, University of Pretoria, Private Bag 323, Pretoria 0001, South Africa

2 Vector Control Division, Ministry of Health, P.O. Box 1661, Kampala, Uganda

3 Nicholas School of the Environment and Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Box 90328, Durham, NC 27708, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

Malaria Journal 2012, 11:21  doi:10.1186/1475-2875-11-21

Published: 14 January 2012

Abstract

Background

Integrated vector management (IVM) is increasingly being recommended as an option for sustainable malaria control. However, many malaria-endemic countries lack a policy framework to guide and promote the approach. The objective of the study was to assess knowledge and perceptions in relation to current malaria vector control policy and IVM in Uganda, and to make recommendations for consideration during future development of a specific IVM policy.

Methods

The study used a structured questionnaire to interview 34 individuals working at technical or policy-making levels in health, environment, agriculture and fisheries sectors. Specific questions on IVM focused on the following key elements of the approach: integration of chemical and non-chemical interventions of vector control; evidence-based decision making; inter-sectoral collaboration; capacity building; legislation; advocacy and community mobilization.

Results

All participants were familiar with the term IVM and knew various conventional malaria vector control (MVC) methods. Only 75% thought that Uganda had a MVC policy. Eighty percent (80%) felt there was inter-sectoral collaboration towards IVM, but that it was poor due to financial constraints, difficulties in involving all possible sectors and political differences. The health, environment and agricultural sectors were cited as key areas requiring cooperation in order for IVM to succeed. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of participants responded that communities were actively being involved in MVC, while 48% felt that the use of research results for evidence-based decision making was inadequate or poor. A majority of the participants felt that malaria research in Uganda was rarely used to facilitate policy changes. Suggestions by participants for formulation of specific and effective IVM policy included: revising the MVC policy and IVM-related policies in other sectors into a single, unified IVM policy and, using legislation to enforce IVM in development projects.

Conclusion

Integrated management of malaria vectors in Uganda remains an underdeveloped component of malaria control policy. Cooperation between the health and other sectors needs strengthening and funding for MVC increased in order to develop and effectively implement an appropriate IVM policy. Continuous engagement of communities by government as well as monitoring and evaluation of vector control programmes will be crucial for sustaining IVM in the country.

Keywords:
Malaria; Integrated vector management; Policy development; Uganda