Moi University Open Access Repository

How do malaria testing and treatment subsidies affect drug shop client expenditures? A cross-sectional analysis in Western Kenya

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Saran, ndrani
dc.contributor.author Laktaba, Jeremiah
dc.contributor.author Menya, Diana
dc.contributor.author Woolsey, Aaron
dc.contributor.author Turner, Elizabeth Louise
dc.contributor.author Visser, Theodoor
dc.contributor.author O'Meara, Wendy Prudhomme
dc.date.accessioned 2024-02-06T07:59:35Z
dc.date.available 2024-02-06T07:59:35Z
dc.date.issued 2022-12-15
dc.identifier.uri http://ir.mu.ac.ke:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/8721
dc.description.abstract Objectives To examine how drug shop clients’ expenditures are affected by subsidies for malaria diagnostic testing and for malaria treatment, and also to examine how expenditures vary by clients’ malaria test result and by the number of medications they purchased. Design Secondary cross-sectional analysis of survey responses from a randomised controlled trial. Setting The study was conducted in twelve private drug shops in Western Kenya. Participants We surveyed 836 clients who visited the drug shops between March 2018 and October 2019 for a malaria-like illness. This included children >1 year of age if they were physically present and accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Interventions Subsidies for malaria diagnostic testing and for malaria treatment (conditional on a positive malaria test result). Primary and secondary outcome measures Expenditures at the drug shop in Kenya shillings (Ksh). Results Clients who were randomised to a 50% subsidy for malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) spent approximately Ksh23 less than those who were randomised to no RDT subsidy (95% CI (−34.6 to −10.7), p=0.002), which corresponds approximately to the value of the subsidy (Ksh20). However, clients randomised to receive free treatment (artemisinin combination therapies (ACTs)) if they tested positive for malaria had similar spending levels as those randomised to a 67% ACT subsidy conditional on a positive test. Expenditures were also similar by test result, however, those who tested positive for malaria bought more medications than those who tested negative for malaria while spending approximately Ksh15 less per medication (95% CI (−34.7 to 3.6), p=0.102). Conclusions Our results suggest that subsidies for diagnostic health products may result in larger household savings than subsidies on curative health products. A better understanding of how people adjust their behaviours and expenditures in response to subsidies could improve the design and implementation of subsidies for health products. en_US
dc.description.sponsorship (R01AI141444). en_US
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher Bmj en_US
dc.subject Drug shop clients en_US
dc.subject Malaria diagnostic testing en_US
dc.subject Malaria treatment en_US
dc.title How do malaria testing and treatment subsidies affect drug shop client expenditures? A cross-sectional analysis in Western Kenya en_US
dc.type Article en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account