The Roll Back Malaria Program

1
Todd Mercural-Chapman (2014)
The Roll Back Malaria Partnership
Abstract
Malaria remains one of the deadliest diseases on the planet, claiming nearly 1 million
lives annually. Nearly half the world’s population remains exposed (3 billion people). Ninety
percent of contractions and deaths from malaria occur in Africa and the most at-risk are
children under five and the elderly. Malaria is the number one killer of children globally.
Economists estimate a loss of $12 billion USD in GDP annually due to the disease through both
direct and indirect costs.
This paper explores a history of malaria control and eradication efforts culminating in
Roll Back Malaria Partnership (RBM) hosted by the World Health Organization from 1998 to
present. The paper will look at RBM’s history, structure, vision, and goals, and provide analysis
and evaluation of its efforts to-date. This exploration will show that, while great gains have been
made in the fight against malaria, there is much work to do by RBM internally and externally in
order to meet its own goals.
Introduction
Despite a century of effort on a global scale, malaria remains one of the deadliest diseases
on the planet, claiming nearly 1 million lives annually. Nearly half the world’s population
remains exposed (3 billion people). Ninety percent of contractions and deaths from malaria occur
in Africa and the most at-risk are children under five and the elderly. Malaria is the number one
killer of children globally. Economists estimate a loss of $12 billion USD in GDP annually due
to the disease through both direct and indirect costs.

2
Efforts have varied since the late 19th
century, with competing approaches of control and
eradication, preventive and curative. Success from all approaches has waxed and waned, with
the most dramatic success seen in the mid-20th
century through the use of DDT on interior spaces
in vulnerable communities. Malaria during a 20-year period was eradicated in a number of
places, including North America, Europe, and parts of South and Central America. For a number
reasons logistical, political and cultural, malaria efforts have been rebuffed in Africa and Asia.
In 1998, the World Health Organization (WHO) partnered with UNICEF, the World
Bank, and UNDP to create the Roll Back Malaria Partnership (RBM), a global network of
governments, NGOs, foundations, private businesses, and research institutions to combat malaria
using a combination of previous efforts in a coordinated fashion. Their goal is to eventually
eradicate malaria for good while strategically employing control, prevention and curative tactics
in the interim.
The initiative was universally applauded at the outset and a flurry of financial pledges
were made by governments across the globe, but from the outset to its fifth year RBM was
plagued by financial insufficiency because few, if any, made good on their pledges, including
one of its founding partners, the World Bank. The financial situation has improved considerably
since 2004, but even its projections for 2012-2015 showed a gap of multiple billions of dollars.
In 2006, RBM underwent a “change initiative” to reorganize and revisit its vision and strategy.
Great gains have been made, with over one million lives saved through the effort. New
technologies in insecticide treated nets (ITNs) and vaccines for children have made a great
difference, as has the policy to ban monotherapy treatments in favor of combined-therapy
medicines (ACTs) to thwart drug resistance. Development of a vaccination is rapidly
progressing with a goal of availability in 2015.

3
Despite the gains, RBM continues to struggle for adequate funding to meet its ambitious
goals. Experts in the literature make a number of recommendations for improvements to the
program: re-evaluate the undervalued role of generalists and social scientists in the network to
better understand the cultural, economic, political and medical obstacles to combatting malaria;
increase the priority of environmental management as a preventive and eradicative tactic (and
explore new types of environmental management); and invest in better medical and death data
collection in endemic countries to ensure accurate measurement of outcomes.
Background & History/Nature of the Problem/Extent of Risk
Malaria is a vector-borne disease prevalent mainly in wet and human tropics which develops
by alternating between human hosts and female Anopheles mosquitos. While it has been
eradicated in many parts of the world, including North America, it remains one of the most
devastating diseases in the world, killing between one and three million people of the 300-500
million cases annually, 90 percent of which live in subs-Saharan Africa. Two-thirds of the
inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa are exposed. Malaria is also the number one cause of death of
African children, killing one every 40 seconds due in part to their lack of immunity. The other
largest cohorts of victims are pregnant women and the elderly. The daily loss of young life is
2,000 despite being a preventable and curable disease (Tren, 2006; Pattanayak et al., 2006;
Duthe, 2008). There are four strains of malaria: morbidity and mortality depend upon both
epidemiological context and particular strain, although plasmodium falciparum remains the most
lethal, accounting for 75% of malaria deaths (Duthe, 2008). Currently, 3.3 billion people are at
risk in 109 countries (GMAP, 2009)
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that nearly 30% of malaria victims come
from countries affected by complex emergencies, meaning they have been displaced from their

4
homes because of natural disaster, conflict, or war. This dynamic increases their chances of
contracting the disease because they are unable to engage in preventive practices or access
curative resources (Whyte, 2000). Despite the staggering available statistics, malaria deaths
remain the most difficult to count for myriad reasons: its greatest cohort of victims, children,
also have underdeveloped immune systems and so it is difficult to isolate a single cause of death
because the symptoms of malaria are common among a host of diseases; malaria causes
vulnerability to other diseases; rural populations lack access to medical care facilities where they
can be diagnosed and treated; many people self-treat using a variety of "traditional" healing
methods; and many deaths are never officially documented because they occur in rural villages
with no infrastructure and little communication with the outside world (Iley, 2006).
Many researchers have studied the social and economic impact of malaria at various levels of
society. For individual families there are the direct costs of lost time at work and the cost of
treatment and the indirect costs of lost work efficiency, time, and, more specifically for children,
"nutritional deficiencies, cognitive and educational disabilities, and physical retardation"
(Pattanayak et al., 2006). At the national level, economists estimate that malaria decreases
annual per capita GNP growth by 0.25-1.30% in tropical countries (Guerin et al., 2002; Sache &
Malaney, 2002). Lost GDP in Africa is estimated at $12 billion USD annually (Sachs &
Malaney, 2002).
A growing body of research shows the symbiotic relationship between malaria proliferation
and deforestation/environmental destruction, climatic change and poverty. To create a linear
chain of causality between these aspects of the larger malaria problem is impossible, and
researchers have devised numerous names, including biocomplexity, to describe what they see as
the comprehensive framework required to understand malaria. "Human social systems,

5
economic activities, interactions with the environment, and lifestyles represent some of the key
domains of interaction that affect infection and disease risk (Wilson, 2001). Poverty can lead to
deforestation/environmental destruction through desperate acts of survival, leading to a climatic
change which invites malaria, or environmental destruction through other causes can perpetuate
poverty and thus increase vulnerability to disease. Both are possible simultaneously, resulting in
a self-perpetuating poverty-deforestation cycle.
Malaria is highly reliant upon environmental conditions and so is greatly affected for better
and for worse by alterations of any type and cause to ecological environment. Precipitation,
temperature, vegetation, land-use, development, etc. can all affect the capacity of malaria
vectors. Deforestation is seen by many researchers as particularly important in understanding
malaria because it is often a precursor to other land use changes that increase vector capacity.
Pattanayuk et al. (2006) identify "five potential pathways" through which deforestation affects
malaria infection and transmission:
1. Deforestation changes the ecology of a disease and its options for hosts
2. Deforestation can affect climate at local, regional, and global scales because changes to
the carbon cycle effect temperature and moisture levels
3. Deforestation is the first step in a chain of land-use changes
4. Deforestation is accompanied by migration and other behavioral changes; migration
means more vulnerable populations (or "less-immune") might move to higher risk areas;
transient populations remain out of reach to the medical community
5. Ecosystem change affects antibiotic resistance to malaria because the parasite is allowed
to evolve and adapt genetically
Deforestation is not a purely environmental or ecological concern, however. Deforestation
and other environmental alterations have significant economic development threads. The
development activities that result from deforestation lead to productive activities in the short-
term, but the benefits are largely enjoyed by populations who are less dependent upon the forest
for every day food and products and who have access to proper medical care.

6
A case study in the Lake Victoria Basin in East Africa illustrates the complexity of malaria
well. Wandiga et al. (2010) found through their own and existing data that climate change had
altered the slimates of highland areas in East Africa and that the resulting temperature increases
had enabled malaria vector mosquitos to find new habitats, resulting in a higher frequency and
severity of malaria epidemics. Most of the populations living in the highlands of East Africa
have historically low immunity to malaria, and so the new exposure brought by a change in their
environment has been particularly devastating and disproportionate when compared to other
areas in the basin whose climates have not changed dramatically or who already have some level
of immunity. Poverty in the highland areas coupled with distance to nearest medical facilities
have complicated efforts to respond.
History of Response Efforts
Early malaria control strategies focused on eradication beginning in the late 19th
century
and the effects of using mosquito nets and draining marshes was noticeable, but the ability to
scale efforts at the global scale needed were hindered by financial and logistical constraints.
Experts in the first half of the 20th
century were divided into two camps in terms of best strategy:
one camp preferred large-scale vector control and drug distribution while the other camp
preferred slower, localized approaches and case management. "While the first group achieved
spectacular successes, such as the interruption of malaria and yellow fever transmission during
the construction of the Panama Canal and the elimination of the introduced highly efficient
African vector Anopheles gambiae in Brazil, sustainability seemed to require the solid public
health foundations envisaged by the second approach" (Najera, 2011). While efforts to use
chemical sprays indoors had been tried, the invention of DDT opened a new door to sustainable

7
eradication – other sprays required weekly applications and vectors returned when the spraying
stopped. Single sprays of DDT had longer lasting effects and malaria did not return when the
spraying stopped (Livadas, 1952). Encouraged by the early success of DDT, the World Health
Organization (WHO) adopted the Global Malaria Eradication Program (GMEP) in 1955 to
coordinate resources among 28 participating countries, and the themes running through its
controversial beginning still exist in the modern debate.
Advocates of the eradication approach highlighted the emergence of mosquito resistance
to DDT that, in their view, necessitated the launch of the GMEP before the world lost its
most promising weapon. They also argued that eradication was, in the long term,
financially more attractive than control. Conversely, critics of the campaign doubted the
feasibility of eradication in vast areas that had poor communications and adverse
environments and that lacked public health systems. They also emphasized the poor
understanding of the implications of undertaking a malaria eradication campaign, both in
terms of its cost and of the risk to the population posed by lost immunity if protection had
to be interrupted (Najera, 2011).
During the program's existence, malaria was successfully eradicated from Europe, North
America, the Caribbean and parts of Asia and South-Central America through indoor spraying
applications of DDT – of the 143 endemic countries were freed of malaria by 1978. Africa was
largely unaffected and is now home to 80-90% of all current malaria cases and deaths (Tanner &
Savigny, 2008). The eradication ethos perpetuated through GMEP came at a cost however: the
demonization of control methods resulting in the abandonment of all malaria intervention
methods other than indoor spraying. Throughout the 1960s, a number of problems and
limitations with indoor residual spraying and the eradication approach in general became
apparent, namely a resurgence of malaria in some places and the realization that there was no
way of knowing if the last vector had been eliminated. And, while GMEP was one of the first
global health programs of its kind and created some powerful global, regional and national
networks that previously did not exist, its implementation often came without regard for cultural

8
and social differences, resulting in a refusal to participate in some localities (Najera, 2011). By
the end of the 1960s, an interest in control measures returned as it became apparent that
eradication would not succeed in some places and that the global battle against malaria required
long-term vision rather than a short-term program.
The renewed focus on control efforts was hindered by a number of forces in the 1970s
and 80s, including economic crises, oil shortages and rising energy costs, lack of institutional
support and natural disasters, all which contributed to more direct causes of resurgent malaria
outbreaks such as poverty and deforestation through exploitation of natural resources. Programs
since have been fragmented and reactionary, focused on a combination of preventive control
tactics as outlined in this table, which shows the full range of efforts thus far:
Response Type Benefit Limitations
Insecticide-Treated
Bed Nets (ITNs)
and Long-Lasting
Insecticide-Treated
Nets (LLINs)
Preventive/
Control
Prevents infection while
people sleep; encourages
healthy levels of rest
Historically difficult to
maintain because of short
effective lifespan; only
recent technology removes
maintenance burden from
impoverished end-user;
historically expensive, not
enough for entire vulnerable
population
Indoor Residual
Spraying (IRS)
Preventive/
Eradication
Effectively controls
mosquito vector
Controversial because of
chemicals used (DDT);
difficult to know when
100% eradication is
achieved
Environmental
Management
(draining marshes,
reforestation, etc.)
Preventive/
Eradication
Best vector control;
Responds to growing
resistance to insecticides &
anti-malarials
Takes time; political, social,
economic, cultural barriers
Vaccine Preventive/
Control
Creates
immunity/eliminates risk in
vulnerable populations
Research still needed;
widespread availability
unlikely until 2016 or later
Local Awareness
Campaigns
Preventive
& Curative/
Control
Understanding of risk and
nature results in appropriate
response and willing
Traditional and cultural
dynamics hinder acceptance
of scientific knowledge;

9
investment
Case Management Curative/
Control
Prompt chemoprophylaxis
proven effective response
Lack of access to treatment;
drugs unaffordable
All of the preventive control and eradication methods are "predominantly supply-side" which
means that program managers and government officials are largely making the decisions about
on-the-ground implementation rather than the vulnerable populations they are trying to protect.
An exception can be made for the environmental management tactic where the behavior and
practices of inhabitants affect their own level of exposure to malaria, for better or for worse.
This exception highlights the tactic's importance as proper management requires support,
education and participation of local stakeholders.
Roll Back Malaria Partnership (RBM)
The Roll Back Malaria Partnership (RBM) was founded in 1998 as a joint effort between
the World Health Organization (WHO), World Bank, United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF),
and the United Nations Development Plan (UNDP) to create a coordinated global network to
combat malaria and has since grown to include over 500 partners working at all levels and in all
disciplines. Partners include endemic countries and their multi- and bi-lateral development
partners, international and local NGOs, research institutions, private corporations and businesses
and private foundations. Its focus is predominantly in sub-Saharan Africa.
As described earlier in the history and background of malaria and response efforts, the
period following the end of the GMEP was a dark and difficult time for endemic countries, with
many resurgences of the disease and a host of inter-related events, forces and dynamics which
exacerbated the vulnerability in endemic countries. The lessons learned from the GMEP and
subsequent years informed the need for and formation of a more comprehensive (preventive,

10
curative, control and eradication), collaborative (engaging stakeholders from the community
level to the international level), and committed (indefinite, evolving, self-reflective and long-
term) effort. RBM attempts to meet its goal through a three tiered strategy: “1) control malaria
to reduce the current burden and sustain control as long as necessary, 2) eliminate malaria over
time country by country and 3) research new tools and approaches to support global control and
elimination efforts,” (GMAP)
It’s vision is to reach “universal coverage” of vulnerable populations and create “a world
free from the burden of malaria” with more specific targets aligned with Millennium
Development Goal 6 and others determined through consensus of the partner network.
Specifically, its targets as outlined in the Global Malaria Action Plan, devised to provide a
framework around which all partners can operate in a coordinated fashion, are:
By 2010:
 80% of people at risk from malaria are using locally appropriate1 vector control
methods suchas long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs), indoor residual spraying (IRS)
and, in some settings, other environmental and biological measures;
 80% of malaria patients are diagnosed and treated with effective anti-malarial
treatments;
 in areas of high transmission, 100% of pregnant women receive intermittent
preventive treatment (IPTp); and
 the global malaria burden is reduced by 50% from 2000 levels: to less than 175-250
million cases and 500,000 deaths annually from malaria.
By 2015:
 universal coverage continues with effective interventions;
 global and national mortality is near zero for all preventable deaths;
 global incidence is reduced by 75% from 2000 levels: to less than 85-125 million
cases per year;
 the malaria-related Millennium Development Goal is achieved: halting and beginning
to reverse the incidence of malaria by 2015; and
 at least 8-10 countries currently in the elimination stage will have achieved zero
incidence of locally transmitted infection.
Beyond 2015:
 global and national mortality stays near zero for all preventable deaths;

11
 universal coverage (which translates to ~80% utilization) is maintained for all
populations at risk until local field research suggests that coverage can gradually be
targeted to high risk areas and seasons only, without risk of a generalized resurgence;
and countries currently in the pre-elimination stage will achieve elimination. (GMAP)
Structure
(image source: rbm.who.int)
RBM Board & Executive Committee
The RBM board consists of 20 voting members including representatives of all seven
constituencies (malaria endemic countries, multilateral development partners, private sector,
OECD donor countries, foundations, NGOs and academia) and two ex-officio members. As with
any organization’s board, its role is to determine the strategic direction of the partnership,

12
approve it budgets and workplans, advocate, ensure adequate resources, monitor ongoing
progress, and resolve organizational or partnership issues as they arise. The executive committee
sets the Board agenda and oversees the Secretariat.
RBM Secretariat
The Secretariat carries out the day-to-day operations of RBM in terms of administration and
operations in pursuit of the Partnership's goals and objectives. Similar to the role of “executive
staff” in a nonprofit or NGO, the Secretariat ensures the Partnership is functioning and working
toward its goals and carries out advocacy efforts by overseeing the implementation of the plans
and programs by the Sub-Regional Networks and the Working Groups.
Sub-Regional Networks (SRN)
Because Africa is such a large continent which also accounts for 80-90% of the world’s
vulnerable population, sub-regional networks were created to provide support to and coordinate
the efforts of local partners. Sub-Regional Networks exist in Central (9 countries), East (13
countries), Southern (10 countries) and West Africa (16 countries). Members are primarily in-
country and regional Partners who meet quarterly to coordinate the individual country plans and
are accountable to the Secretariat. The Partners are the “boots on the ground” of the network,
carrying out their respective portions of the regional or local plan in their separate entities.
Working Groups

13
Working groups are also comprised of Partners but are organized and promote Partner alignment
around topic areas rather than geography. The topic areas are: communication, vector control,
monitoring and evaluation, malaria case management, malaria in pregnancy, and financing and
resources. The role of the working group is to “harmonize Partner efforts at the global and
country level” and “generate alignment on complex strategic issues.” The particular structures
and purpose of each of these working groups is outlined on the RBM website.
The Forum
The last major structure is the Forum, which is considered the complete assembly of all
constituencies of RBM partners which occurs every two years to adopt long-term vision and
goals and have high-level discussions and debate about progress.
This diagram illustrates the value chain created by the Partnership and the roles of each
of the entities in the process:
(Source:BostonConsultingGroup)

14
Policy and Program Analysis
The RBM partnership has hired independent evaluators on three occasions (2002, 2009, 2013) to
provide comprehensive evaluations of the program’s progress and provide recommendations for
the future. These formal evaluations have focused on four major objectives of the Partnership:
1. Progress Towards GMAP Milestones
2. Assess Strengths and Weaknesses of RBM Structures
3. Response to Previous Evaluations
4. Positioning RBM through to GMAP II and post MDG-2015
The most recent evaluation, interestingly enough, did not focus on the statistical goals stated
in the GMAP, only mentioning that the response thus far has been “remarkable” and that “global
malaria morality is estimated to have declined by 25% since RBM’s founding and one million
lives have been saved” (2013 External Evaluation, p. 41). Rather, these evaluations have
focused almost exclusively on the internal operations of the organization. How well does the
Partnership function? How do the different components work together? Is everyone playing
their role? How can they improve internally?
Here is an example of their analysis:
The RBM Partnership has successfully carried out its mandate to convene,
coordinate, and facilitate communication with key stakeholders. This has led to a
significant contribution to the impressive progress made towards achieving the
objectives of the GMAP. RBM’s strong advocacy has helped to place and keep
malaria on the international agenda. RBM’s support for timely and pertinent
planning, resource mobilization, and M&E technical assistance has helped
improve national malaria control program efforts. Though less successful, the
efforts to strengthen national capacity building in the areas of procurement and
supply chain management, health information and regulatory systems, and the
development of more and larger traditional and innovative funding streams have
partially contributed to strengthening the international and national malaria
response. The RBM Partnership’s platform for the exchange of ideas, strategies,
best practices, and progress reports has motivated the necessary stakeholders to
come together in the fight against malaria to look for ways to push the agenda
forward.

15
Other researchers and evaluators are less inclined to gloss over the “less successful” meat
of the Partnership as described above.
Freeman & Robbins (2003) refer to “disease deadbeats” in Malaria Journal, noting that,
despite universal support for the initiative and an understanding that the cost for global malaria
programs would reach into the billions per year (starting at $1.5B and progressively increasing),
funding had only reached $130 million after four years and accounting systems were so poor that
it could not be determined how much had been spent by whom and for what. The World Bank
itself had offered up to $500 million early in the pledge making phase but had yet to make good
on $490 million of it by 2002.
In 2012, the RBM itself published this table of financing gaps amounting to 25-50% from
year to year leading up to the 2015 milestone while also praising pledge countries for their
incredible efforts:
Williams et al. (2003) found that in the first five years, the role of social science in the field
of malaria were far from realized. The important theoretical frameworks brought to the malaria
discussion and response implementation by anthropology, sociology, economics, political
science, demography and communications had not been considered as integral despite each of
their abilities to “understand how human behavior is shaped and modified in the global context
by a vast array of influences…For example, the essence of a medical anthropological perspective
is an appreciation of the complexity of culture and the realization that specific aspects such as

16
health beliefs and behaviors cannot be understood in isolation but need to be looked at in relation
to their larger historical, economic, social, political and geographical contexts.” I have not found
in the literature or in the formal external evaluations that this has been addressed or improved
upon.
Pattanayak et al. (2006) appreciated the RBM’s synthesized approach which includes both
control and eradication measures, understanding that vaccine development (also supported by
Loucq et al. (2011) of the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative) will still take time and so
appropriate control measures are necessary in the interim. Their concern is that deforestation as
a problem and environmental management has been enough of a priority nor on an appropriate
scale. The emphasis has been placed on insecticide treated nets (ITNs) which, despite
advancements in technology, remain unaffordable to many and older models already distributed
require frequent retreatment which rural villagers should not be expected to carry out. Filinger et
al. (2009) note that the “current best practice” of malaria control, which emphasizes ITNs and
over-reliance on drugs increases the likelihood that resistance will develop and that larval source
management should be added to the list of tactics employed in environmental management.
“Vector control in Africa should target all stages of the mosquito life cycle, yet for the past 50
years it has focused almost exclusively on adult mosquito control. ITNs have not only saved
thousands of lives; they have also restored confidence in vector control in Africa. However,
adult-based methods are limited in what they can achieve because adult mosquitoes feed outside
hoses and before sleeping hours.”
Up until 2011, despite the fact that most malaria deaths are those of children under the age of
five, there was a dearth of medicines designed specifically for children, but the RBM partnership
with Novartis, which had successfully delivered ACTs (artemisinin combination-based therapy)

17
to adults has successfully begin mass distribution of medication for children. ACTs for adults
were made the exclusive form of treatment by RBM in an effort to prevent the development of
drug resistance to monotherapies. This policy has been successful.
Finally, Duthe (2008) calls for better demographic and health data collection in endemic
countries due to limited gains in much of sub-Saharan Africa and a need to properly measure the
outcomes of global malaria efforts. “Without precise medical data, death by malaria is difficult
to diagnose…In most African countries, no civil records are kept outside the major cities: most
children are not registered at birth, death registration is incomplete and reported ages at death are
not always reliable. In addition, cause-of-death from health infrastructures are of poor quality. In
rural areas, few people are seen by a doctor before they die, and no autopsy is performed after
death. In 2001, only four countries of sub-Saharan Africa produced high-quality national data on
causes of death.”
Conclusion
Great gains have been made, with over one million lives saved through the effort. New
technologies in insecticide treated nets (ITNs) and vaccines for children have made a great
difference, as has the policy to ban monotherapy treatments in favor of combined-therapy
medicines (ACTs) to thwart drug resistance. Development of a vaccination is rapidly
progressing with a goal of availability in 2015. Despite the gains, RBM continues to struggle for
adequate funding to meet its ambitious goals. Experts in the literature make a number of
recommendations for improvements to the program: re-evaluate the undervalued role of
generalists and social scientists in the network to better understand the cultural, economic,
political and medical obstacles to combatting malaria; increase the priority of environmental
management as a preventive and eradicative tactic (and explore new types of environmental

18
management); and invest in better medical and death data collection in endemic countries to
ensure accurate measurement of outcomes.

19
Bibliography
Duthé, G. (2008). Malaria resurgence in senegal: Measuring malaria mortality in mlomp.
Population, 63(3), 443-467.
Fillinger, U., Ndenga, B., Githeko, A., & Lindsay, S. W. (2009). Integrated malaria vector
control with microbial larvicides and insecticide-treated nets in western kenya: A controlled trial.
World Health Organization.Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 87(9), 655-65.
Freeman, P., & Robbins, A. (2003). Disease deadbeats. Foreign Policy, (138), 79-80.
GMAP. Global Malaria Action Plan: For a Malaria Free World. Roll Back Malaria (RBM)
Partnership - the Global Framework for Coordinated Action against Malaria, 2008. Web. 9 July
2014.
Iley, K. (2006). Malaria deaths are the hardest to count. World Health Organization.Bulletin
of the World Health Organization, 84(3), 165-6.
Livadas GA (1952) Is it necessary to continue indefinitely DDT residual spraying
programmes? Relevant observations made in Greece. WHO document WHO/MAL/79. Geneva:
WHO.
Loucq, C., Birkett, A., Poland, D., Botting, C., Nunes, J., & Ethelston, S. (2011). Producing
A successful malaria vaccine: Innovation in the lab and beyond. Health Affairs, 30(6), 1065-72.
Nájera JA, González-Silva M, Alonso PL (2011) Some Lessons for the Future from the
Global Malaria Eradication Programme (1955–1969). PLoS Med 8(1): e1000412.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000412
Pattanayak, S., Dickinson, K., Corey, C., Murray, B., Sills, E., & Kramer, R. (2006).
Deforestation, malaria, and poverty: A call for transdisciplinary research to support the design of
cross-sectoral policies. Sustainability : Science, Practice, & Policy, 2(2)
Tanner, M., & Savigny, D. d. (2008). Malaria eradication back on the table. World Health
Organization.Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 86(2), 82.
Tren, R. (2006). Light at end of malaria tunnel. Appropriate Technology, 33(4), 19-20.
Wandiga, S. O., Opondo, M., Olago, D., Githeko, A., Githui, F., Marshall, M., . . . Achola, P.
(2010). Vulnerability to epidemic malaria in the highlands of lake victoria basin: The role of
climate change/variability, hydrology and socio-economic factors. Climatic Change, 99(3-4),
473-497.
Whyte, B. (2000). Up to one third of malaria deaths in africa occur in countries affected by
complex emergencies. World Health Organization.Bulletin of the World Health Organization,
78(8), 1062.

20
Willey, B. A., Paintain, L. S., Mangham, L., Car, J., & Schellenberg, J. A. (2012). Strategies
for delivering insecticide-treated nets at scale for malaria control: A systematic review. World
Health Organization.Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 90(9), 672-684E.
Williams, H. A., Jones, C., Alilio, M., Zimicki, S., & al, e. (2002). The contributions of
social science research to malaria prevention and control. World Health Organization.Bulletin of
the World Health Organization, 80(3), 251.

The Roll Back Malaria Program

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to The Roll Back Malaria Program

Similar to The Roll Back Malaria Program (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Roll Back Malaria Program