Program Efficacy in the Mekong Delta

Since the introduction of the NMCEP, the number of malaria cases in the Mekong Delta has experienced a steep decline, falling from 5,803 in 1992 to 94 cases in 2010 (Peak et al., 2015). Table 2 shows promising results in these provinces and their respective levels of malaria control over time. During 2016–2020, most provinces were in Zone 3, suggesting strong prevention against malaria. There are three provinces remaining at Zone 1, but a positive trend is shown temporally. The extensive use of ITNs, insecticides, and vector control measures, alongside continuous implementation of ACT, enables the region to curb a possible outbreak of AR malaria (WHO, 2011).

The Mekong Delta achieved minimal incidence of malaria from 2018 to 2020, even during the active malaria season, while other regions experienced continuous fluctuations (Figure 11). This may be explained by the NMCEP’s success in applying factors that allow for more effective implementation and control. First, ethnic minority groups living in the Mekong Delta are smaller in size compared to others resident elsewhere, such as in the Central Highlands (Målqvist et al., 2013). The MoH suggests that ethnic minorities living in remote areas are among the highest at-risk groups for malaria. Populations in the Mekong Delta, despite their rural existence, still live in reasonable proximity to urban areas and major cities. This enables better access to therapies and resources like ITNs and insecticides. Next, the Mekong Delta is sandwiched between the major cities of Cần Thơ and Hồ Chí Minh City, which are categorized as Zone 3 (preventing re-establishment), potentially inducing a trickle-down effect on the Mekong Delta for malaria control. In relation to this point, there is “a strong association between P. falciparum malaria and the population living below the poverty line” (Manh et al., 2011). Thus, being surrounded by two metropolitan hubs generates a domino effect on the Mekong Delta to inherit complementary economic growth.