| Literature DB >> 28883960 |
Gidie Woju Debo1,2, Dejene Hailu Kassa3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Though the burden of malaria is declining, challenges in control continue globally, regionally and nationally as the transmission of malaria is dynamic and determinants differ by place and time, and across populations. The current level of knowledge on malaria prevalence and associated factors in specific communities, such as pastoralist communities of Ethiopia, is lacking.Entities:
Keywords: Associated factors; Malaria; Pastoralist community; Prevalence; Traditional practices
Year: 2016 PMID: 28883960 PMCID: PMC5530935 DOI: 10.1186/s40794-016-0033-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Trop Dis Travel Med Vaccines ISSN: 2055-0936
Fig. 1Age group by sex composition of study subjects, BennaTsemay District (a pastoralist Community), South Ethiopia, 2012
Background, Mosquito nets utilization and traditional practices of participants among households in BennaTsemay district, Southern Ethiopia, 2012
| Characteristics | Frequency | % |
|---|---|---|
| Family Education ( | ||
| Primary school attendance | 47 | 10.2 |
| No school attendance | 414 | 89.8 |
| Family marriage type ( | ||
| Polygamous | 248 | 53.8 |
| Not polygamous | 213 | 46.2 |
| Family’s housing type ( | ||
| thatched roof with wall | 303 | 65.7 |
| thatched roof without wall | 158 | 34.3 |
| HHs status ( | ||
| Model HH (trained for Health Extension Package) | 271 | 60.5 |
| Non model HH | 190 | 39.5 |
| Distance of HHs from Mosquito breeding site ( | ||
| Within three kilometres | 208 | 45.1 |
| Greater than three kilometres | 253 | 54.9 |
| Family Technological access (mobile phone, Radio) ( | ||
| Yes | 246 | 53.4 |
| Type of MN (observed) ( | ||
| LLITN (Permanet) | 152 | 92.7 |
| Other (Olyset, Safenite) | 12 | 7.3 |
| Participants’ MN condition ( | ||
| Safe MN (not torn) | 152 | 33 |
| Unsafe MN (torn) | 267 | 57.9 |
| No MN possessed | 42 | 9.1 |
| MNs over sleeping areas (hanged) ( | ||
| Yes | 196 | 46.8 |
| MNs used for other purposes (n-419) | ||
| Yes | 169 | 40.3 |
| Saving MN for later use ( | ||
| Yes | 146 | 34.8 |
| MN owned in use ( | ||
| All the time | 279 | 60.5 |
| Some times | 182 | 39.5 |
| Slept Under MN last night following survey day (419) | ||
| Yes | 165 | 39.4 |
| Boronge’ practice ( | ||
| Yes | 291 | 63.1 |
| Ara’ practice ( | ||
| Yes | 293 | 63.6 |
| Dugo’ house use( | ||
| Yes | 278 | 60.3 |
| In the past 1 month, performed at least one traditional Practices ( | ||
| Yes | 307 | 66.6 |
Footnote: MN mosquito net, LLITN long lasting insecticide treated net, HH household
Malaria prevalence by Ethnic Community and ‘kebeles’, BennaTsemay District, Southern Ethiopia, 2012
| Measures | Communities ( | Kebeles ( | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tsemay | Benna |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Frequency | 230 | 231 | 122 | 67 | 69 | 132 | 29 | 42 |
| No. (%) | 18(7.8 %) | 10(4.3 %) | 5(4.1 %) | 4(6.0 %) | 7(10.1 %) | 9(6.8 %) | 2(6.9 %) | 1(2.4 %) |
| 95 % CI | (4.9, 11.9) | (2.2, 7.6) | (1.5,8.4) | (1.9,13.8) | (4.5,19.0) | (3.4,12) | (1.2, 21.0) | (0.1,11) |
Prevalence of Malaria and potential infection risk factors, BennaTsemay District, Southern Ethiopia, 2012
| Factors | Number | Infected cases (%) | 95 % CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Over all prevalence | 461 | 28(6.1) | (4.2, 8.5) |
| Reproductive age group | |||
| No | 332 | 20(6.0) | (3.8, 9.0) |
| Yes | 129 | 8(6.2) | (2.9, 11.4) |
| Religion | |||
| Traditional believers | 383 | 25(6.5) | (4.4, 9.3) |
| All other religions (Christian and Muslim) | 78 | 3(3.8) | (1.6, 6.1) |
| Family Education | |||
| Primary school attendance | 47 | 4(8.5) | (2.8, 19.3) |
| No school attendance | 414 | 24(5.8) | (3.8, 8.4) |
| HH technological access (mobile, radio) | |||
| Yes | 246 | 5 (2.0) | (0.7, 4.4) |
| No | 215 | 23 (10.7) | (7.0, 15.4) |
| Condition of MNs | |||
| Safe MN(good) | 152 | 1(0.7) | (0.03, 3.2) |
| Unsafe MN(torn) | 272 | 23(8.5) | (5.6, 12.2) |
| No MN | 42 | 4(9.5) | (3.8, 8.3) |
| Slept under MNs prior to day of survey | |||
| Yes | 165 | 2(1.2) | (0.2, 3.9) |
| No | 254 | 22(8.7) | (5.6, 12.6) |
| ‘Boronge’ practice | |||
| No | 170 | 3(1.8) | (0.5, 4.7) |
| Yes | 291 | 25(8.6) | (5.8, 12.2) |
| ‘Ara’ practice | |||
| No | 168 | 5(3.0) | (1.0, 6.5) |
| Yes | 293 | 23(7.8) | (5.2, 11.4) |
| ‘Dugo’ house use | |||
| No | 183 | 6(2.3) | (0.7, 4.4) |
| Yes | 278 | 22(7.9) | (5.2, 11.6) |
| Witchcraft visit | |||
| No | 183 | 6(2.3) | (0.7, 4.4) |
| Yes | 278 | 22(7.9) | (5.2, 11.6) |
| ‘Rhae/Rhaento’ practice | |||
| No | 252 | 8(3.2) | (1.5, 5.9) |
| Yes | 209 | 20(9.6) | (6.1, 11.1) |
Footnote: MN mosquito net, HH house hold, CI confidence interval
Comparison of Malaria infection with risk factors, BennaTsemay District, Southern Ethiopia, 2012
| Independent variables | Frequency | Cases | Crude odds ratio (95 % CI) | Adjusted odds ratio (95 % CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | % | ||||
| Pregnancy status ( | |||||
| Other than pregnancy | 444 | 25 | 5.63 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Pregnancy | 17 | 3 | 17.7 | 3.6 (0 .96, 13.32) | 12.6 (1.7, 94.7) * |
| Saving MN for later use ( | |||||
| No | 273 | 2 | 0.7 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 146 | 22 | 15.4 | 24.6(5.7,106.4) * | 9.6 (2.2, 42.8) * |
| ‘Boronge’ performed | |||||
| No | 170 | 3 | 1.8 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 291 | 25 | 8.6 | 5.2 (1.6, 17.6) * | |
| HH status | |||||
| Model | 189 | 4 | 2.1 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Non-model | 272 | 24 | 8.8 | 4.2 (1.4, 12.3) * | |
| House type | |||||
| Thatched roof with wall | 158 | 3 | 1.9 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Thatched roof without wall | 303 | 25 | 8.3 | 4.6 (1.4, 15.6) * | |
| Use of MN for other purpose | |||||
| No | 250 | 3 | 1.2 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 169 | 21 | 12.4 | 11.7 (3.4, 39.8) * | 0.4 (0.02, 6.1) |
| ‘Rhae/Rhanto’ performed | |||||
| No | 252 | 8 | 3.2 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 209 | 20 | 9.6 | 3.2 (1.4, 7.5) * | 0 .8(0.2, 2.9) |
| ‘Dugo’ house use | |||||
| No | 183 | 6 | 3.3 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 278 | 22 | 7.9 | 2.5 (1.0, 6.0) * | 1.4(0.1, 16.5) |
| Modern technology access | |||||
| Yes | 246 | 5 | 2 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| No | 215 | 23 | 10.7 | 5.8 (2.2, 15.5) * | 1.n0.4, 5.6) |
*Statistically significant at p < 0.05
Foot note: CI confidence interval, HH household, MN mosquito net