Vector control decision-making processes: Perspectives of twelve national malaria programmes across Africa

Background Vector control is essential to malaria control and elimination. National Malaria Programmes (NMPs) must make complicated decisions about vector control in the face of evolving epidemiology, biological threats like insecticide resistance, a growing vector control toolbox, and an increasingly constrained funding landscape. The WHO recently published a manual on subnational tailoring of malaria strategies, but limited efforts have been made to understand how NMPs prioritize data and factors that impact decision-making in practice. This study explores vector control decision-making processes, enablers, and barriers across 12 African malaria programmes. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 NMP managers or designated representatives from 12 African countries. Interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom or in-person, audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed using content analysis. Participants described the interventions in use, decision-making factors, stratification approaches, perspectives on new tools, and operational challenges. Results Insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) are the core interventions in all countries, with limited but growing use of larval source management, mainly larviciding. Vector control tool selection is driven by WHO guidance, resistance profiles and patterns, epidemiological trends, operational feasibility, and donor funding priorities. Sub-national stratification is widely applied; however, limited analytic and modeling capacity hinder consistent application. Gaps in entomological data result in incomplete data availability to guide stratification. New vector control tools were perceived as promising options, albeit constrained by cost, limited evidence, regulatory delays, and community acceptability. Funding emerged as the dominant driver of decisions, shaping intervention choices regardless of country preference. Participants emphasized substantial gaps in vector control protection related to residual transmission, outdoor biting, insecticide resistance, and unprotected populations living in temporary structures or associated with high-risk occupations. Conclusions Vector control decision-making among NMPs is shaped by an interplay of scientific evidence, operational realities, and external funding dynamics. Strengthening entomological surveillance, enhancing SNT analytic and model output interpretation capacity, securing sustainable financing, and improving community engagement are critical to advancing tailored deployment of tools. Decision-support frameworks that reflect the complexities facing NMPs may further enhance evidence-based, context-specific vector control planning.