From: Rapid urban malaria appraisal (RUMA) in sub-Saharan Africa
RUMA Methodology | Strengths | Weaknesses |
---|---|---|
Literature review | • Time-saving, can be done before and afterwards • Can identify qualified local expertise • Comparison of the malaria patterns and trends | • Incomplete information in time and space |
Collection of health statistics | • Good description of malaria burden over a longer time period | • Completeness and quality of data |
Cross-sectional mapping of healthcare facilities & major Anopheles breeding sites | • Visualization of information for policy makers • Helps to plan urban health programmes and upgrade community infrastructure | • Time consuming and only limited scale possible • Breeding sites may be transient /seasonal |
School parasitaemia surveys | • Good estimates of local endemicity and local risk factors • Good description of fever prevalence in school • Malaria risk gradient | • Limited representativeness if only small number of schools were sampled |
Health facility-based fever surveys | • Estimates malaria-attributable fevers and prevalence of clinical malaria • Description of fever management | • Limited representativeness due to attendance bias |
Brief description of the health care system | • Understanding of the structure of city health department and of current malaria control activities • Limited cost • Review of the efficacy of case management | • Only focuses on the available information • Depends on the efficiency of information dissemination within municipal departments |