| Literature DB >> 21663661 |
William J Moss1, Harry Hamapumbu, Tamaki Kobayashi, Timothy Shields, Aniset Kamanga, Julie Clennon, Sungano Mharakurwa, Philip E Thuma, Gregory Glass.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The burden of malaria has decreased dramatically within the past several years in parts of sub-Saharan Africa. Further malaria control will require targeted control strategies based on evidence of risk. The objective of this study was to identify environmental risk factors for malaria transmission using remote sensing technologies to guide malaria control interventions in a region of declining burden of malaria.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21663661 PMCID: PMC3123248 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-10-163
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Figure 1Map of the study sites in Choma District, Southern Province, Zambia.
Figure 2Spatial distribution of households with and without RDT positive individuals. Brown circles indicate all households in the study area. Yellow circles indicate sampled households in which at least one resident was RDT positive at the study visit. Green circles indicate sampled households in which no resident was RDT positive at the study visit. First through fifth order streams are indicated.
Spatial risk factors for malaria
| Number of households | % Positive households | Unadjusted OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <1.98 km | 31 | 18 | 2.85 (1.18, 6.9) | 0.020 | 3.93 (1.55, 9.93) | 0.0008 |
| 1.98-3.74 km | 33 | 16 | 1.80 (0.76, 4.2) | 0.179 | 3.47 (1.20, 10.05) | 0.004 |
| 3.74-5.95 km | 32 | 13 | 1.08 (0.44, 2.7) | 0.862 | 1.38 (0.52, 3.70) | 0.194 |
| > 5.95 (ref) | 32 | 13 | 1.00 | |||
| <4.55 km | 32 | 7 | 0.39 (0.16, 0.91) | 0.030 | ||
| 4.55-11.92 km | 32 | 8 | 0.22 (0.09, 0.58) | 0.002 | ||
| 11.92-20.57 km | 32 | 17 | 0.44 (0.18, 1.09) | 0.078 | ||
| > 20.57 (ref) | 32 | 23 | 1.00 | |||
| Eastern or south-eastern | 32 | 18 | 2.06 (0.91, 4.70) | |||
| Western or north-western | 20 | 5 | 0.43 (0.14, 1.32) | |||
| 10 m increments | 1105.6 ± 46.2 m | 1097 ± 48.2 m | 0.95 (0.91, 0.98) | 0.006 | 0.87 (0.81, 0.95) | 0.0001 |
| 0.03 ± 0.023 | 0.02 ± 0.014 |
Figure 3Malaria risk map. Malaria risk map generated using households with prevalent RDT-positive malaria cases, showing all households in the study area and first through fifth order streams. Yellow and orange shading indicates regions of high risk and blue shading indicates regions of low risk.
Figure 4Incident malaria cases and the malaria risk map based on prevalent cases. Households with and without incidence malaria cases detected by RDT overlaid on the malaria risk map and first through fifth order streams. The size of the circle represents the number of person-years of observation within each study household.
Figure 5Household incidence of malaria compared with log odds of residing in a high risk area.