| Literature DB >> 20199674 |
Guofa Zhou1, Andrew K Githeko, Noboru Minakawa, Guiyun Yan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interest in indoor residual spray (IRS) has been rekindled in recent years, as it is increasingly considered to be a key component of integrated malaria management. Regular spraying of each human dwelling becomes less and less practical as the control area increases. Where malaria transmission is concentrated around focal points, however, targeted IRS may pose a feasible alternative to mass spraying. Here, the impact of targeted IRS was assessed in the highlands of western Kenya.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20199674 PMCID: PMC2843726 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-9-67
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Figure 1Study area and experiment design. Intervention and nonintervention valleys are defined as the area within 500 m of the Yala river in the intervention and nonintervention zones.
Study population and sample size for entomological and parasitological surveys by study areas.
| Intervention | Nonintervention | Buffer areas† | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Valley | Uphill | Valley | Uphill | ||
| Approximate population | 2800 | 8800 | 2200 | 7400 | 10800 |
| Mosquito survey: Mean number of houses sampled per survey | 24 | 79 | 29 | 65 | 103 |
| Monthly parasite survey: Mean number of children sampled per survey | 45 | 75 | 48 | 134 | 84 |
| Cohort study: Mean number of children sampled per survey | 113 | 154 | 112 | 249 | 321 |
† Buffer areas include all buffer areas.
Figure 2Dynamics of parasite prevalence in different areas from April 2004 to March 2006.
Reductions in parasite prevalence and mosquito densities after IRS.
| Location | Survey period | Intervention | Nonintervention | Adjusted reduction (%)† |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Valley | Before intervention | 63.61 [53.63, 73.61] | 39.71 [32.24, 47.18] | |
| Valley | After intervention | 16.44 [7.81, 25.11] | 29.62 [23.16, 36.09] | 65.35 |
| Uphill | Before intervention | 44.86 [34.87, 54.85] | 25.04 [17.57, 32.51] | |
| Uphill | After intervention | 18.53 [9.88, 27.18] | 19.28 [12.81, 25.74] | 46.35 |
| Valley | Before intervention | 3.41 [1.04, 5.76] | 2.06 [0, 5.14] | |
| Valley | After intervention | 0.17 [0, 2.28] | 3.18 [0.42, 5.93] | 96.82 |
| Uphill | Before intervention | 0.94 [0, 3.31] | 0.61 [0, 4.11] | |
| Uphill | After intervention | 0.47 [0, 2.58] | 0.63 [0, 3.05] | 51.6 |
| Valley | Before intervention | 0.78 [0.25, 1.31] | 0.23 [0.06, 0.39] | |
| Valley | After intervention | 0.06 [0, 0.54] | 0.12 [0, 0.27] | 85.26 |
| Uphill | Before intervention | 0.26 [0, 0.79] | 0.08 [0, 0.25] | |
| Uphill | After intervention | 0.05 [0, 0.53] | 0.05 [0, 0.19] | 69.23 |
† Reduction in parasite prevalence and vector densities in the intervention valley and uphill area after intervention were adjusted assuming no change in the corresponding nonintervention valley or uphill area.
Figure 3Biweekly cumulative incidence rate and changes in relative risk in different areas. Survey time week 0 (Wk 0 on x-axis) represents baseline survey. The relative risk was adjusted using baseline surveys as the unit between intervention and nonintervention valleys (or uphill areas).
Figure 4Temporal changes in .