Table 3 RUMA methodology strengths and 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