Economic Burden of Mosquito-Borne Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, among all the vector-borne diseases, mosquito-borne diseases are responsible for a substantial number of cases and deaths and amount to an economic cost of US $12 billion per year. However, there is a dearth of systematic research conducted on the economic burden of mosquito-borne diseases. To address the lack of comprehensive information on this topic, a systematic review will be conducted to synthesize evidence for informing targeted policies and strategies addressing this growing burden and for better financial protection of households. OBJECTIVE: The systematic review aims to review the economic burden of mosquito-borne diseases in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The review estimates the total cost, which is the compilation of both the direct costs and indirect costs. Additionally, it reports cost estimates per disease, country, and patient. The review outcome will also discuss the impact of the economic burden in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure, catastrophic health expenditure, impoverishment, and gross domestic product impact due to mosquito-borne diseases in LMICs. METHODS: Systematic searches will be conducted in PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovid Embase, Scopus, the cumulative index of nursing and allied health literacy, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Additionally, websites of the World Bank, World Health Organization, and Asian Development Bank as well as grey literature (eg, Malaria No More and the Ministry of Health websites) will be searched to gather comprehensive information on the topic and identify studies published in the English language. The titles and abstracts will be independently screened by 2 reviewers, followed by a full-text review against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion with a third author. The methodological reporting quality of the studies will be evaluated using the Larg and Moss checklist, Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, and the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. Data will be extracted using a standardized data extraction form. RESULTS: The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023427111) prior to the initiation of the search strategy. The review is currently ongoing and will synthesize information from the identified studies through a process involving structured screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal in the form of tables and a narrative summary of studies reporting the economic burden incurred due to mosquito-borne diseases in LMICs. CONCLUSIONS: This review seeks to report the economic burden of mosquito-borne diseases. It will act as evidence for policymakers to prioritize their decisions regarding containing the prevalence of mosquito-borne diseases and the means to lowering the incidence of diseases spread by mosquitoes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023427111; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=427111. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/50985.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".