| Literature DB >> 24237682 |
Mathieu Maheu-Giroux, Marcia C Castro1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent efforts of accelerated malaria control towards the long-term goal of elimination had significant impacts in reducing malaria transmission. While these efforts need to be sustained over time, a scenario of low transmission could bring about changes in individual disease risk perception, hindering adherence to protective measures, and affecting disease-related knowledge. The goal of this study was to investigate the potential impact of a successful malaria vector control intervention on bed net usage and malaria-related knowledge.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24237682 PMCID: PMC3835455 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-12-422
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Characteristics of study participants stratified by larviciding phase and intervention status
| Male sex | 35.2% | 35.5% | 36.6% | 36.3% | 38.2% | 39.4% |
| Age | | | | | | |
| Younger than 5 years of age | 15.4% | 13.3% | 13.3% | 13.2% | 11.5% | 10.0% |
| Between 5 and 14 years of age | 27.6% | 27.9% | 29.1% | 28.4% | 29.6% | 31.2% |
| Between 15 and 29 years of age | 28.5% | 29.5% | 29.3% | 28.2% | 28.9% | 29.1% |
| Between 30 and 44 years of age | 16.4% | 17.3% | 16.1% | 18.4% | 18.8% | 18.4% |
| Between 45 and 59 years of age | 7.2% | 7.2% | 7.7% | 7.6% | 7.1% | 7.3% |
| Aged 60 years or above | 4.9% | 4.8% | 4.5% | 4.1% | 4.1% | 4.0% |
| | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Reported use of mosquito repellent | 1.3% | 4.2% | 3.7% | 2.5% | 3.1% | 3.3% |
| Reported use of coil | 5.7% | 8.4% | 5.9% | 5.9% | 7.3% | 5.8% |
| Interviewed during the rainy season | 41.1% | 47.5% | 51.4% | 51.8% | 30.9% | 38.3% |
| Previously surveyed participant (follow-up) | 16.9% | 31.0% | 30.4% | 32.4% | 31.3% | 27.5% |
| Male sex | 64.2% | 71.6% | 71.6% | 70.8% | 73.3% | 74.7% |
| Age | | | | | | |
| Younger than 30 years of age | 8.2% | 2.4% | 2.9% | 3.0% | 1.7% | 1.6% |
| Between 30 and 49 years of age | 48.1% | 47.3% | 43.9% | 47.2% | 50.8% | 48.9% |
| Between 50 and 64 years of age | 31.1% | 37.0% | 42.3% | 39.5% | 36.6% | 38.4% |
| Aged 65 years or above | 11.7% | 13.1% | 10.9% | 9.9% | 10.5% | 10.6% |
| | 0.9% | 0.2% | 0% | 0.3% | 0.5% | 0.5% |
| Occupation of the household head | | | | | | |
| Business/Government/Formal sector | 59.3% | 66.3% | 65.7% | 58.3% | 69.5% | 77.3% |
| Farmer/Fisherman | 2.2% | 1.2% | 1.5% | 1.1% | 0.9% | 0.6% |
| Informal sector | 19.2% | 20.0% | 18.4% | 25.3% | 17.0% | 12.0% |
| Retired/No job/Domestic | 17.9% | 11.5% | 13.8% | 13.8% | 11.7% | 9.2% |
| | 1.4% | 1.0% | 0.6% | 1.5% | 0.8% | 0.9% |
| Socio-economic status | | | | | | |
| Lowest quintile | 31.9% | 18.5% | 21.5% | 5.1% | 9.1% | 7.0% |
| Second quintile | 27.6% | 24.2% | 16.5% | 19.6% | 16.3% | 14.8% |
| Third quintile | 13.9% | 18.2% | 19.2% | 20.9% | 15.0% | 19.2% |
| Fourth quintile | 11.6% | 21.5% | 20.5% | 26.9% | 31.2% | 28.3% |
| Highest quintile | 15.0% | 17.5% | 22.4% | 27.5% | 28.4% | 30.7% |
| Education level of household head | | | | | | |
| Illiterate | 6.2% | 6.9% | 4.2% | 4.0% | 2.9% | 1.2% |
| Primary | 58.9% | 43.5% | 48.5% | 37.5% | 32.7% | 35.0% |
| Secondary | 29.2% | 44.2% | 39.1% | 55.9% | 59.4% | 59.8% |
| Tertiary | 3.6% | 4.5% | 7.1% | 1.9% | 4.3% | 3.4% |
| Other | 0.3% | 0% | 0.4% | 0% | 0.1% | 0% |
| | 1.8% | 0.9% | 0.8% | 0.7% | 0.6% | 0.6% |
| House has window screens | 23.7% | 24.2% | 45.6% | 22.2% | 30.3% | 39.7% |
| House has whole ceiling | 25.1% | 29.5% | 36.0% | 44.5% | 41.7% | 34.8% |
Figure 1Prevalence of bed net usage stratified by survey round and larviciding status. Confidence intervals are based on 9,999 bootstrap replicates at the TCU levels. (The time frame of larviciding phases and survey rounds do not overlap perfectly. Thus, due to small sample size and the geographically limited extent of data collection (only one ward), results for 697 data points in the larviciding area in survey round 3, and 744 data points in control area in survey round 6 are not shown).
Figure 2Proportion of household heads knowing at least five symptoms of malaria, stratified by survey round and larviciding status. Confidence intervals are based on 9,999 bootstrap replicates at the TCU levels. (Prevalence estimates based on small sample size and geographically limited extent of data collection are not represented).
Figure 3Proportion of household heads that know that mosquitoes transmit malaria, stratified by survey round and larviciding status. Confidence intervals are based on 9,999 bootstrap replicates at the TCU levels. (Prevalence estimates based on small sample size and geographically limited extent of data collection are not represented).
Effect size estimates of the larviciding intervention on reported bed net usage the night before the survey
| | | | | | | |
| Larviciding intervention | ||||||
| Time since initiation of larviciding (years) | - | - | - | - | ||
| | | | | | | |
| Larviciding intervention | ||||||
| Time since initiation of larviciding (years) | - | - | - | - | ||
Statistically significant results are bolded.
To account for the fact that the coefficients of the ward fixed effects exhibited slow convergence, the number of iterations used for inference was doubled to 120,000 for Models (2) and (3).
*PR: Prevalence ratio.
†CrI: Credible interval.
§AR1: First-order autoregressive.
‡Control variables include: age, gender, dummy for being a follow-up observation, use of insect repellent, use of sprays, use of coil, living in a house with window screens, socio-economic status, and weekly rainfall lagged by two weeks (with quadratic term).
Effect size estimates of the larviciding intervention on knowledge of at least five malaria symptoms
| | | | | | | |
| Larviciding intervention | ||||||
| Time since initiation of larviciding (years) | - | - | - | - | 1.03 | (0.99-1.07) |
| | | | | | | |
| Larviciding intervention | ||||||
| Time since initiation of larviciding (years) | - | - | - | - | 1.01 | (0.98-1.05) |
Statistically significant results are bolded.
*PR: Prevalence ratio.
†CrI: Credible interval.
§AR1: First-order autoregressive.
‡Control variables include: age, gender, dummy for being a follow-up observation, and socio-economic status.
Effect size estimates of the larviciding intervention on knowledge of malaria transmission
| | | | | | | |
| Larviciding intervention | 1.01 | (0.96-1.05) | 1.00 | (0.95-1.05) | 1.01 | (0.95-1.06) |
| Time since initiation of larviciding (years) | - | - | - | - | 0.97 | (0.92-1.02) |
| | | | | | | |
| Larviciding intervention | 1.01 | (0.96-1.05) | 1.00 | (0.95-1.05) | 1.02 | (0.97-1.07) |
| Time since initiation of larviciding (years) | - | - | - | - | 0.96 | (0.92-1.01) |
Statistically significant results are bolded.
*PR: Prevalence ratio.
†CrI: Credible interval.
§AR1: First-order autoregressive.
‡Control variables include: age, gender, dummy for being a follow-up observation, and socio-economic status.
Figure 4Effect modification of the larviciding intervention by age, gender, and socio-economic status on bed net usage, knowledge of malaria symptoms, and knowledge of malaria transmission. Statistically significant results are bolded. To account for the fact that the coefficients of the ward fixed effects exhibited slow convergence for the ‘Bed net usage’ models, the number of iterations used for inference was doubled to 120,000. † Models for the bed net usage outcome are adjusted for: age, gender, dummy for being a follow-up observation, use of insect repellent, use of sprays, use of coil, living in a house with window screens, socio-economic status, and weekly rainfall lagged by two weeks (with quadratic term). Models also include: a semiparametric time trend, random effects at household and TCU levels, and fixed effects at the ward level (as in Model 2). ‡ Models for the knowledge of malaria symptoms and malaria transmission outcomes are adjusted for: age, gender, dummy for being a follow-up observation, and socio-economic status. Models also include: a semiparametric time trend, random effects at TCU level, and fixed effects at the ward level (as in Model 2).