| Literature DB >> 26581562 |
Mansour M Ndiath1, Badara Cisse2,3, Jean Louis Ndiaye4, Jules F Gomis5, Ousmane Bathiery6, Anta Tal Dia7, Oumar Gaye8, Babacar Faye9,10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Senegal, considerable efforts have been made to reduce malaria morbidity and mortality during the last decade. This resulted in a marked decrease of malaria cases. With the decline of malaria cases, transmission has become sparse in most Senegalese health districts. This study investigated malaria hotspots in Keur Soce sites by using geographically-weighted regression. Because of the occurrence of hotspots, spatial modelling of malaria cases could have a considerable effect in disease surveillance.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26581562 PMCID: PMC4652414 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-015-0976-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1Localization of Keur Soce HDSS in Senegal
Fig. 2Methodological framework
Fig. 3Spatial distribution of household with and without RDT positive
Fig. 4Malaria hotspots in Keur Soce HDSS
Candidate explanatory variables
| Variables | Values |
|---|---|
| Age | 0–69 |
| Gender | 0–100 % for both males and females |
| Household size | 1–35 |
| Village size | 10–3698 |
| Sleeping rooms | 1–9 |
| Bed net use | 1–25 |
| Distance to health Facilities | 1–15 |
| Temperature | 18.1–41.7 |
| Raining days | 15–39 |
| Housing materials | Material used for walls, roof, and floor |
| Cow | 2–125 |
| Goat | 1–66 |
| Sheep | 0–99 |
| Donkey | 0–58 |
| Horses | 0–15 |
| Distance to breeding site | 10–300 |
General characteristics of malaria cases
| Factors | Malaria | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | P value | |
| Age group | |||
| Less than 5 years | 56 (24.47 %) | 61 (37.50 %) | 0.000 |
| 6–15 years | 88 (41.49 %) | 39 (21.32 %) | |
| More than 15 years | 74 (34.04 %) | 66 (41.18 %) | |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 119 (57.98 %) | 65 (40.44 %) | 0.002 |
| Female | 79 (42.02 %) | 91 (59.56 %) | |
| Occupation | |||
| Farmers | 158 (78.72 %) | 111 (74.26 %) | 0.054 |
| Student/Teacher | 44 (18.09 %) | 32 (16.18 %) | |
| House wife | 16 (03.19 %) | 23 (09.56 %) | |
| Education | |||
| None | 121 (59.04 %) | 89 (58.09 %) | 0.579 |
| Primary | 30 (10.64 %) | 22 (08.82 %) | |
| Secondary | 26 (08.51 %) | 18 (05.88 %) | |
| Arabic | 51 (21.81 %) | 47 (27.21%) | |
| Fever (Temp >37.5 °C) | |||
| Yes | 142 (70.21 %) | 91 (59.56 %) | 0.046 |
| No | 66 (29.79 %) | 65 (40.44 %) | |
| Headache | |||
| Yes | 184 (92.55%) | 115 (77.21 %) | 0.000 |
| No | 24 (07.45%) | 41 (22.79 %) | |
| Sweating | |||
| Yes | 57 (25.00 %) | 31 (15.44 %) | 0.037 |
| No | 151 (75.00 %) | 125 (84.56 %) | |
| Chills and shivering | |||
| Yes | 89 (42.02 %) | 53 (31.62 %) | 0.056 |
| No | 119 (57.98 %) | 103 (68.38 %) | |
| Nausea and vomiting | |||
| Yes | 134 (65.96 %) | 35 (18.38 %) | 0.002 |
| No | 74 (34.04 %) | 121 (81.62 %) | |
| N | 408 (58.02 %) | 356 (41.98 %) | 764 |
Summary statistics for OLS
| Variables | Coefficients value | Std. error | t statistic | P value | VIF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 304.8 | 2.453 | 0.58 | 0.456 | |
| Household size | −0.02 | 0.044 | −0.25 | 0.036* | 1.804 |
| Housing materials | 0.56 | 0.221 | 2.3 | 0.005* | 1.704 |
| Village size | −0.06 | 0.068 | −1.56 | 0.562 | 1.479 |
| Sleeping rooms | 2.12 | 0.024 | 4.39 | 0.003* | 1.223 |
| Bed net use | 0.78 | 0.061 | 9.23 | 0.921 | 1.012 |
| Distance to health Facilities | 0.92 | 0.091 | 6.99 | 0.256 | 1.740 |
| Sheep | 0.15 | 0.051 | 1.25 | 0.001* | 1.635 |
| Distance to breeding site | 0.43 | 0.014 | 2.36 | 0.003* | 1.453 |
* Significant at 0.05
OLS diagnostics statistics
| Parameters | Value | P value |
|---|---|---|
| Joint F-statistic | 13.83 | 0.00004* |
| Joint wald statistic | 36.39 | 0.00013* |
| Koender statistic | 15.06 | 0.01562* |
| Jarque–Bera statistic | 2.12 | 0.04303* |
R2 = 0.7696; Adj R2 = 0.70369; AIC = 756.23; AICc = 763.25
* Significant at 0.05
Model fitness comparison
| Fitness parameters | OLS | GWR |
|---|---|---|
| AICc | 763.25 | 679.5 |
| R2 | 0.76 | 0.95 |
| Adj R2 | 0.70 | 0.82 |
Fig. 5Local parameter estimates of GWR. a Local intercept for malaria hotspots (shows the spatial variation in the local intercept estimated by GWR). b Household size (indicates how malaria hotspots would change for each spatial unit change of the household size variable). c Village size (indicates how malaria hotspots would change for each spatial unit change of the village size variable). d Number of sleeping rooms (indicates how malaria hotspots would change for each spatial unit change of the number of sleeping rooms variable). e Bed net use (indicates how malaria hotspots would change for each spatial unit change of the bed net use variable). f Households raising sheep (indicates how malaria hotspots would change for each spatial unit change of the number of household raising sheep variable). g Distance to breeding sites (indicates how malaria hotspots would change for each spatial unit change of the distance to breeding sites variable). h Distance to health facilities (indicates how malaria hotspots would change for each spatial unit change of the distance to health facilities variable). i Housing materials (indicates how malaria hotspots would change for each spatial unit change of the housing materials variable)