| Literature DB >> 26867774 |
Clemens Frank1,2, Ralf Krumkamp3,4, Nimako Sarpong5, Peter Sothmann6,7, Julius N Fobil8, Geoffrey Foli9, Anna Jaeger10, Lutz Ehlkes11, Ellis Owusu-Dabo12, Yaw Adu-Sarkodie13, Florian Marks14, Ralf R Schumann15, Jürgen May16,17, Benno Kreuels18,19,20.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malaria incidence has declined considerably over the last decade. This is partly due to a scale-up of control measures but is also attributed to increasing urbanization. This study aimed to analyse the association between malaria and urbanization and the effect of urbanicity on the acquisition of semi-immunity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26867774 PMCID: PMC4751679 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-016-1138-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1Map of the study area. Black circles represent study communities
Algorithm used to assess the level of urbanicity
| Components | Variables | Score-points | Variation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Population size | Population | 0–10 | 214–72,105 |
| Economic activity | Proportion of employed people in the non-agricultural sector | 0–10 | 11.5–98.1 % |
| Education | Availability of primary school | 0/2 | |
| Availability of junior high school | 0/2 | ||
| Availability of senior high school | 0/2 | ||
| Proportion of literate people | 0–2 (0.5) | 61.2–93.3 % | |
| Proportion of people with postgraduate education | 0–2 (0.5) | 0.5–18.9 % | |
| Health services | Availability of a clinica | 0/5 | |
| Availability of a hospitala | 0/5 | ||
| Transportation | Road conditiona | 0/5 | |
| Frequency of public transporta | 0/5 | ||
| Services | Availability of post officea | 0/2.5 | |
| Availability of petrol stationa | 0/2.5 | ||
| Availability of banka | 0/2.5 | ||
| Proportion of households connected to waste collection system | 0–2.5 (1.25) | 0–39 % | |
| Sanitation | Proportion of households with tap water | 0–5 (2.5) | 0–64.7 % |
| Proportion of households with a flush toilet | 0–5 (1.25) | 0–70.9 % | |
| Housing | Proportion of households with electric light | 0–2 (0.5) | 37.2–96.6 % |
| Proportion of households with a concrete roof | 0–2 (1) | 0–9.8 % | |
| Proportion of households with concrete walls | 0–2 (0.5) | 2.3–98.4 % | |
| Proportion of households with a concrete floor | 0–2 (0.5) | 1.9–100 % | |
| Proportion of rented dwellings | 0–2 (0.5) | 0–70.1 % |
Linear variables were categorized and received score points depending on their quantiles, graduation in brackets
aData collected via systematic interviews by the study team in 2012, other variables were retrieved from the Ghana statistical service and were collected during the 2010 National Census
Summary of case characteristics, overall and variation by community
| Characteristics | Overall | Variation by community | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median | IQR | ||
| Cases, | 2203 | 49 | 28–101 |
| Mean age, | 3.3 (3.2) | 3.2 | 2.9–3.6 |
| Female, | 1023 (46.5) | 24 (46.2) | 13–45 (41.9–51.4) |
| ITN usea, n (%) | 1769 (81.9) | 43 (86.7) | 24–70 (81.3–91.5) |
a43 Missing values
Linear regression models for associations between urbanicity and MPF, urbanicity and mean age of malaria patients, and MPF and mean age of malaria patients
| Univariate regression modelsa | Multivariate regression modelsa, b | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | 95 % CI | p | Adj.-R2c | Coefficient | 95 % CI | p | Adj.-R2c |
| Urbanicity and MPFd | |||||||
| −4.97 | −6.33–3.61 | <0.001 | 0.69 | −4.60 | −6.03–3.17 | <0.001 | 0.71 |
| Urbanicity and age of malaria patientse | |||||||
| 2.93 | 1.04–4.81 | 0.004 | 0.27 | 2.33 | 0.24–4.44 | 0.03 | 0.29 |
| MPF and age of malaria patientsf | |||||||
| −4.91 | −8.11–1.73 | 0.004 | 0.27 | −3.87 | −7.50–0.25 | 0.04 | 0.28 |
aAll models are weighted for the number of individuals contributing to the estimation of the outcome variables (MPF and mean age)
bAdjusted for ITN use
cAdjusted-R2
dDecrease in MPF (%) per ten-point decrease in urbanicity score
eIncrease in mean age in months of patients with malaria per ten-point increase in urbanicity score
fDecrease in mean age in months of patients with malaria per 10 % increase in MPF
Fig. 2Association between urbanicity and MPF. The Figure illustrates a linear decrease of MPF with increasing levels of urbanicity. The linear regression models a 5 % decrease per ten-point increase on the urbanicity scale (95 % CI: 4–6 %, R2 = 0.70, p < 0.001). Data points are scaled proportional to the number of individuals contributing to the measurement of MPF
Fig. 3Association between urbanicity and age, and MPF and age. The Figure illustrates an association between urbanicity and the mean age of malaria patients in months (a R2 0.27; p = 0.004), while there is no association between urbanicity and mean age of all patients (b R2 = 0.03; p = 0.21). In addition, there is an association between MPF and mean age of malaria patients (c R2 = 0.27; p = 0.004) and no association between MPF and mean age of all patients (d R2 = 0.08; p = 0.09). Data points are scaled proportional to the number of individuals contributing to the measurement of mean age
Linear regression models for associations between components of the urbanicity score and MPF
| Variablea | Univariate regression | Multivariate regression | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient (95 % CI) |
| Adjusted-R2 | Coefficient (95 % CI) |
| Adjusted-R2 | |
| Population size | −0.04 (−0.06 to 0.03) | <0.001 | 0.59 | −0.01 (−0.03 to 0.02) | 0.67 | 0.77 |
| Economic activity | −0.04 (−0.05 to −0.02) | <0.001 | 0.57 | −0.01 (−0.04 to 0.01) | 0.29 | |
| Education | −0.04 (−0.06 to −0.24) | <0.001 | 0.52 | −0.02 (−0.05 to 0.01) | 0.16 | |
| Health services | −0.02 (−0.03 to −0.01) | <0.001 | 0.40 | 0.01 (−0.01 to 0.02) | 0.80 | |
| Transportation | −0.02 (−0.04 to −0.01) | 0.001 | 0.40 | −0.01 (−0.02 to 0.01) | 0.32 | |
| Services | −0.02 (−0.03 to −0.01) | <0.001 | 0.54 | −0.01 (−0.01 to 0.03) | 0.84 | |
| Sanitation | −0.02 (−0.03 to −0.02) | <0.001 | 0.54 | 0.01 (−0.01 to 0.02) | 0.40 | |
| Housing | −0.04 (−0.06 to −0.03) | <0.001 | 0.65 | −0.02 (−0.06 to 0.02) | 0.32 | |
aEach component ranges from 0 to 10 points