Additional File 1: Summary of Delivery System Evaluations

Additional file 1: Summary of delivery system evaluations Delivery Primary outcome Design Scale Country Reference system ITNs: a) New systems Retail sector Proportion of Observational cross 1 district Malawi Holtz et al social households that sectional survey (post 2002 [45] marketing own at least one only) net. Internal control: Proportion of attribution1 by colour of children under 5 net who slept under a net the night before the survey Routine ANC Proportion of nets Interviews with health 35 districts Kenya Guyatt et al procured that staff, ANC attendees and 2002 [43] were distributed health facility audits to pregnant No control women within 12 weeks Routine Proportion of Observational cross 12 villages Afghanista Rowland et al delivery families who sectional survey (pre-, n 2002 [25] through clinics purchased a net mid, and post) and NGOs No control2

Routine ANC Proportion of Longitudinal 2 districts Kenya Guyatt et al pregnant women No control 2003[42] who use the free ITN Mass Proportion of Observational cross 22 camps Uganda Spencer et al distribution in households with sectional survey (post 2004 [46] Internally at least one ITN only) Displaced Proportion of No control Person camps persons sleeping under a net ITN-measles Non-standard Campaign exit interviews 1 district Ghana Grabowsky et vaccination indicators + observational cross al 2005 [47] campaign Proportion of sectional survey (post caregivers who only) reported their Historical internal3 control youngest child had slept under an ITN received during the campaign ITN-measles Non-standard Observational cross 5 districts Zambia Grabowsy et vaccination indicators sectional survey (post al 2005 [48] campaign (children’s ITN only) ownership) Historical internal control Community Proportion of Observational cross Interventio Tanzania Kikumbih et al based social households with sectional survey (pre- and n 6 2005 [49] marketing and at least one net post) villages, unassisted External geographic control 1 private sector control division Lymphatic Proportion of Observational cross 1 LGA in Nigeria Blackburn et filariasis mass households with sectional survey (post each of 2 al 2006 [50] drug at least one ITN only) states administration Historical internal control programme ITNs, Vitamin Proportion of Observational cross 1 district Tanzania Skarbinski et A, measles households with sectional survey (post al 2007 [51] vaccination an under 5 owning only) and at least one Historical internal control mebendazole bednet and/or ITN campaign Commercial Proportion of Observational cross 20 sites in Mozambiq Brentlinger et shopkeepers households with sectional survey (post 9 districts ue al 2007 [20] and at least one net only) community External geographic leaders control Employer and Proportion of Observational cross 4 ‘sites’ Kenya Wacira et al community households with sectional survey (post 2007 [19] based at least one net only) External geographic controls Public sector Non-standard Observational cross 3 districts Zambia Agha et al clinics and indicators. sectional survey (post 2007 [52] village based Access to nets by only) volunteers socio-economic External geographic groups control ITN-polio Proportion of Observational cross National Niger Thwing et al vaccination & households sectional surveys (2 x post 2008 [35] Vitamin A owning an ITN campaign) campaign Historical internal control ANC and retail Proportion of Cluster randomised 1 province Burkina Muller et al sector social households controlled trial Faso 2008 [21] marketing owning at least Intervention: ANC + social programme one Serena ITN marketing Control: social marketing only ITN voucher Proportion of Observational cross National Tanzania Hanson et al scheme pregnant women sectional surveys (pre and 2009 [22] using an ITN post surveys) Internal control: attribution1 of nets by source Routine ANC Proportion of Cohort study 1 clinic Democrati Pettifor et al pregnant women Attribution of nets: based c Republic 2009 [53] using an ITN on type of Congo Routine Proportion of Observational cross 3 districts Malawi Mathanga et immunisation children 12 to 23 sectional surveys (pre and al 2009 [24] services months using an post surveys) ITN External geographic control ITN-measles Proportion of Observational cross 16 Local Nigeria Afolabi et al vaccination households with sectional surveys (post Governme 2009 [54] campaigns any mosquito only) nt Areas nets. No control (LGA) ITN voucher Proportion of Observational cross 2 regions Ghana Webster et al scheme and households with sectional surveys (pre and 2010 In press routine ANC at least one post surveys) [23] direct delivery mosquito net Internal control: of ITNs attribution of nets by source ITNs: b) Existing systems Multiple Proportion of Observational cross 6 villages + Tanzania Fraser-Hurt et delivery households with sectional survey (single 1 town al 1998 [55] strategies at least one net. survey + sales records Proportion of Internal control: households newly attribution of nets by owning a net from source the initiative Community Proportion of Observational cross 3 zobas Eritrea Macintyre et based delivery children under 5 sectional survey (single al 2006 [28] years not under an survey) ITN in ITN owning No control households Multiple Proportion of Observational cross 4 districts Kenya Noor et al delivery children who slept sectional survey (single 2006 [27] strategies under a net the survey) night before the Internal control: survey attribution of nets by Proportion of nets source that were from the retail sector ITN-measles Non-standard Observational cross 1 district Ghana Grabowsky et campaign + indicators sectional studies (single al 2007 [26] routine clinic (children’s ITN survey) delivery + ownership) Internal control: commercial attribution of nets by market source Multiple Proportion of Longitudinal cohort study 4 districts Kenya Noor et al delivery children <5 years Internal control: 2007 [39] strategies who slept under attribution of nets by any net the night source before the survey Multiple Proportion of nets Observational cross 31 villages Tanzania Khatib et al delivery used by infants sectional survey (single 2008 strategies and young survey) [56] children (12-59 Internal control: months) attribution of nets by source Multiple Proportion of Observational cross 1 district Tanzania Bernard et al delivery children <5 years sectional survey (single 2009 [57] strategies who slept under survey) any net the night Internal control: before the survey attribution of nets by source IPTp: a) New systems Multiple The proportion of Non-randomised 25 Uganda Mbonye et al community pregnant intervention study parishes 2007 [31] based adolescents and Control: health facilities strategies primigravidae who Intervention: community received 2 doses based systems of IPtp Community The proportion of Non-randomised 2 districts Uganda Ndyomugyen Directed pregnant women intervention study yi et al 2009 Distributors who received 2 External geographic [29] (CDD) of doses of IPTp control ivermectin Intervention: ANC + CDDs Control: ANC Community 1) The proportion Non-randomised 14 Malawi Msyamboza based delivery of pregnant intervention study interventio et al 2009 women who External geographic n and 12 [30] received >2 doses control control of SP-IPT Intervention: community villages 2) The proportion health workers (CHWs) of pregnant give information + SP women attending Control: CHWs give ANC at least twice information during the current pregnancy IPTp b) Existing systems: ANC Trends in Observational cross National Tanzania Marchant et proportion of sectional household and al 2008 [36] pregnant women facility surveys (3 taking 1 and 2 consecutive years) doses of IPTp No control ANC Proportion of Observational cross One Uganda Kiwuwa et al pregnant women sectional survey district 2008 [58] receiving 1 or ≥2 (household level) doses of IPTp No control ANC Proportion of ANC Observational cross 1 Local Nigeria Akinleye et al attendees sectional survey (single Governme 2009 [59] receiving at least survey) nt Area one dose of IPTp No control Effective treatment: a) New systems Community Proportion of Observational cross 2 villages Brazil Cunha et al based visits for which sectional surveys 2001 [34] guidelines for Historical control + dipstick use and external geographic treatment were control followed School Proportion of Observational cross 2 sub- Ghana Afenyadu et teachers correctly sectional survey (post districts al 2005 [60] diagnosed cases only) that were treated No control according to the protocol Outreach Proportion of Observational cross 23 villages Cambodia Yeung et al clinics and respondents with sectional survey (single 2008 [33] Village Malaria fever in the last 3 survey) Workers weeks who External geographic received an ACT control by delivery system Home based Treatment Randomised controlled 1 parish Uganda Staedke et al delivery incidence density trial 2009 [32] per person-year Control: standard care Intervention: home management b) Components of systems Multiple Type of drug Observational cross 4 districts Kenya Amin et al delivery dispensed by sectional survey (single 2003 [61] strategies source survey) Internal control: attribution of treatments by source

Public sector Self reported Observational cross 7 ‘malaria South Barnes et al adherence to sectional survey (single sections’ Africa 2005 [62] artemether- survey) lumefantrine No control Community Proportion of Observational cross IDP camps Uganda Kolaczinski et Drug caretakers who sectional survey (single in 1 district al 2006 [63] Distributors adhered to the survey) dose of No control antimalarials given Public and Proportion of Observational cross 4 districts Zambia Hamer et al mission health patients sectional survey (single 2007 [64] facilities undergoing survey) malaria diagnostic No control procedures and receiving antimalarial treatment Multiple Proportion of Observational cross 1 province Burundi Gerstl et al delivery children with (a sectional survey (single 2007 [65] strategies symptom based) household survey) uncomplicated Internal control: malaria who were attribution of treatment treated with to source AS+AQ Government Proportion of Observational cross Four Zambia Zurovac et al and mission children with sectional study (single districts 2007 [66] facilities uncomplicated health facility survey) malaria treated No control with (AL) Government AL prescribing, Observational cross Four Uganda Zurovac et al and private- dispensing and sectional study (single districts 2008 [67] not-for-profit counselling health facility survey) facilities practices No control Government Proportion of Observational cross Four Kenya Zurovac et al facilities children who sectional study (single districts 2008 [68] needed AL who health facility survey) were given it No control Multiple Proportion of Observational cross 2 districts Tanzania Hetzel et al delivery children and sectional survey (single + 1 town 2008[41] strategies adults receiving survey) prompt and Internal control: appropriate attribution of treatment antimalarial to source treatment Retail sector 1) Proportion of Observational cross 2 districts Tanzania Hetzel et al shopkeepers who sectional survey (single 2008 [69] mentioned the retail outlet survey + correct child- mystery shopper survey) dosage of SP No control 2) the odds that a mystery shopper would receive an appropriate treatment Public sector Anti-malarial Observational cross 4 districts Kenya Zurovac et al health facilities treatment sectional survey (single 2008 [70] practices survey) No control Public and Quality of malaria Observational cross 1 Province Angola Rowe et al private health case management sectional survey (single 2009 [71] facilities survey) No control Public sector Proportion of RDT Pre-post cluster 3 districts Kenya Skarbinski et health facilities positive and randomised trial al 2009 [72] negative patients prescribed ACTs

Note 1 attribution of nets refers to the use of the source (colour, type) of net to attribute outputs or outcomes to a defined delivery system. 2 No control was included within the cross sectional surveys. These were conducted alongside a case control study which had an objective of assessing the effectiveness of ITNs rather than the delivery system per se. 3 Historical internal control: questions were asked on pre-campaign ownership of ITNs in a post campaign survey and where use is reported on use of a campaign net