Goodman, CatherineColeman, PaulMills, Anne2019-09-252019-09-252012-01-112004-012940286159http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/182587"Uptake of malaria interventions remains woefully low, despite good evidence that they are both effective and highly cost-efficient. This publication uses economic analysis to review knowledge on why this is the case. Influences on patient behaviour (demand) and the range of public and private providers (supply) are assessed to identify factors that limit the availability and effective use of malaria interventions, and the opportunities to improve both treatment and prevention. The economic rationale for government intervention in malaria control is based on arguments of equity and market failure. Poverty prevents access to effective interventions. The costs associated with complicated malaria can drive households into poverty, and the poorest households are likely to have access only to the most informal parts of the health sector where quality is lowest. Market failure is a problem for those malaria interventions with public goods characteristics or externalities; and where information problems are most severe."(pg iii)Pages: 72engWith permission of the license/copyright holderhealth ethicsmalaria controlpovertyresearchPolitical ethicsDevelopment ethicsEconomic ethicsBioethicsMedical ethicsHealth ethicsBook