| Literature DB >> 24757573 |
Elijah Chirebvu1, Moses John Chimbari2, Barbara Ntombi Ngwenya2.
Abstract
This study investigated potential risk factors associated with malaria transmission in Tubu village, Okavango subdistrict, a malaria endemic area in northern Botswana. Data was derived from a census questionnaire survey, participatory rural appraisal workshop, field observations, and mosquito surveys. History of malaria episodes was associated with several factors: household income (P < 0.05), late outdoor activities (OR = 7.016; CI = 1.786-27.559), time spent outdoors (P = 0.051), travel outside study area (OR = 2.70; CI = 1.004-7.260), nonpossession of insecticide treated nets (OR = 0.892; CI = 0.797-0.998), hut/house structure (OR = 11.781; CI = 3.868-35.885), and homestead location from water bodies (P < 0.05). No associations were established between history of malaria episodes and the following factors: being a farmer (P > 0.05) and number of nets possessed (P > 0.05). Eave size was not associated with mosquito bites (P > 0.05), frequency of mosquito bites (P > 0.05), and time of mosquito bites (P > 0.05). Possession of nets was very high (94.7%). Close proximity of a health facility and low vegetation cover were added advantages. Some of the identified risk factors are important for developing effective control and elimination strategies involving the community, with limited resources.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24757573 PMCID: PMC3976786 DOI: 10.1155/2014/403069
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar Res Treat
Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents in Tubu village.
| Characteristics |
| % |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Male | 21 | 29.6 |
| Female | 50 | 70.4 |
| Age | ||
| 18–29 | 23 | 32.4 |
| 30–39 | 18 | 25.4 |
| 40–49 | 7 | 9.9 |
| 50–59 | 10 | 14.1 |
| 60 and above | 13 | 18.3 |
| Marital status | ||
| Single | 36 | 50.7 |
| Cohabiting | 17 | 23.9 |
| Married | 10 | 14.1 |
| Widowed | 4 | 5.6 |
| Never married | 4 | 5.6 |
| Educational status | ||
| Never went to school | 24 | 33.8 |
| Primary | 8 | 11.3 |
| Junior secondary | 31 | 43.7 |
| Senior secondary | 4 | 5.6 |
| Tertiary | 4 | 5.6 |
| Ethnicity | ||
| WaYei | 64 | 90.1 |
| HamMbukushu | 3 | 4.2 |
| Banderu/Herero | 3 | 4.2 |
| Farming practice | ||
|
| 60 | 84.5 |
| Dry land farmers | 1 | 1.4 |
| Non farmers | 10 | 14.1 |
| Household status | ||
| Household head | 30 | 42.3 |
| Household head's children | 19 | 26.8 |
| Household head's partner | 15 | 21.1 |
| Other relations | 7 | 9.8 |
Figure 1Respondents' monthly household income levels in Tubu village. The exchange rate was US$1 to BWP7.936.
Associations between various risk factors for malaria transmission in Tubu village determined by the Fischer and Pearson χ 2 test.
| Risk factor |
|
|---|---|
| Malaria episode versus period outdoors | 0.051* |
| Household income versus malaria episode | 0.018** |
| Malaria episode versus farming status | 0.391 |
| Malaria episode versus distance from water body | 0.036** |
| Eave size versus mosquito bites | 0.887+ |
| Eave size versus frequency of mosquito bites | 0.900 |
| Eave size versus time of mosquito bites | 0.746 |
| Malaria episode versus number of nets possessed | 0.496 |
**Significant association.
*Borderline association.
+Obtained from Fischer's exact test; the rest were obtained from Pearson's χ 2 test.
Association between history of malaria episode and household/individual risk factors in Tubu village.
| Risk factor | Odds ratio (OR) | 95% confidence interval (CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Residential structure used as bedroom | 11.781 | 3.868–35.885 |
| Late outdoor activities | 7.016 | 1.796–27.559 |
| Travel outside Tubu village | 2.700 | 1.004–7.260 |
| Possession of mosquito nets | 0.892 | 0.797–0.998 |
Number of cattle owned by each respondent and distance of cattle kraals from homesteads in Tubu village.
| Variable |
| % |
|---|---|---|
| Number of cattle | ||
| None | 20 | 28.2 |
| <10 | 23 | 32.4 |
| 10–<50 | 20 | 28.2 |
| 50–100 | 6 | 8.5 |
| >100 | 2 | 2.8 |
| Distance of kraal from homestead | ||
| <3000 m | 2 | 4.0 |
| >3000 m | 49 | 96.0 |
Figure 2Different sources of mosquito nets possessed by respondents in Tubu village.
Figure 3Proportion of respondents' homesteads located at various distances from mosquito breeding sites in Tubu village.