| Literature DB >> 29884176 |
Nicole F Dear1, Chifundo Kadangwe2, Themba Mzilahowa2, Andy Bauleni2, Don P Mathanga2,3, Chifundo Duster4, Edward D Walker5, Mark L Wilson6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malaria is increasing in some recently urbanized areas that historically were considered lower risk. Understanding what drives urban transmission is hampered by inconsistencies in how "urban" contexts are defined. A dichotomized "urban-rural" approach, based on political boundaries may misclassify environments or fail to capture local drivers of risk. Small-scale agriculture in urban or peri-urban settings has been shown to be a major risk determinant.Entities:
Keywords: Anopheles; Malawi; Small-scale agriculture; Urban malaria; Urban–rural; Vector ecology
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29884176 PMCID: PMC5994107 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-018-2375-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1Sampling design (black boundary denotes Blantyre city administrative boundary). The eight transects were aligned with major roads leading outwards from Blantyre city centre towards rural Blantyre. Clusters of five households each within a distance of 1.5 km of the road were chosen at random from within a 500 m × 500 m area at each of the 64 sampling points. Each 500 m × 500 m area was divided into a grid of 25 subunits, each 100 m × 100 m, and five houses were chosen at random from five of the 25 subunits. If more than one household was in a 100 m × 100 m subunit, only one was selected. If fewer than five houses were located within the total 500 m × 500 m area, houses nearest to the grid were selected progressively until five households total were identified [25]
Summary of mosquitoes collected by CDC light traps
| Sex | Genus | Trap nights | Total | Average per light-trap-night | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female |
| 1472 | 30,237 | 20.5 | 47.1 |
|
| 1472 | 4888 | 3.3 | 17.6 | |
|
| 1472 | 156 | 0.1 | 0.9 | |
| Male |
| 1472 | 3526 | 2.4 | 9.7 |
|
| 1472 | 47 | 0.0 | 0.3 | |
|
| 1472 | 41 | 0.0 | 0.3 |
Fig. 2Average number of female An. arabiensis and An. funestus per light-trap-night, by season
Summary of Anopheles spp. mosquitoes collected by CDC light traps
| Sex | Species | Trap nights | Total | Average per light-trap-night | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry season | |||||
| Female |
| 845 | 36 | 0.0 | 0.4 |
|
| 845 | 291 | 0.3 | 2.1 | |
| Other | 845 | 2 | 0.0 | 0.1 | |
| Male |
| 861 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
|
| 861 | 4 | 0.0 | 0.1 | |
| Other | 861 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Rainy season | |||||
| Female |
| 578 | 1134 | 2.0 | 6.5 |
|
| 578 | 3055 | 5.3 | 22.0 | |
| Other | 578 | 15 | 0.0 | 0.4 | |
| Male |
| 611 | 4 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
|
| 611 | 9 | 0.0 | 0.2 | |
| Other | 611 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
Fig. 3Distribution of a peri-domestic agriculture, b urban house density, c Female An. arabiensis, and d Female An. funestus for household clusters along an urban–rural continuum in Blantyre, Malawi
Bivariate analysis of household demographics, behavioural factors, and peri-domestic environmental characteristics by presence/absence of agriculture
| All households | Agriculture absent | Agriculture present | P value (T test or Chi square) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Mean or Freq | SD or % | N | Mean or Freq | SD or % | N | Mean or Freq | SD or % | ||
| Demographics | ||||||||||
| Number of rooms | 1546 | 3.7 | 1.9 | 726 | 3.8 | 2.1 | 820 | 3.6 | 1.6 | 0.14 |
| Number of children under age 5 | 1520 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 700 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 820 | 0.6 | 0.8 | < |
| Number slept in the house | 1520 | 3.8 | 1.9 | 700 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 820 | 3.9 | 1.7 | 0.13 |
| Age of household head (years) | 1520 | 40.5 | 16.8 | 700 | 40.7 | 16.4 | 820 | 40.3 | 17.1 | 0.64 |
| Male head of household | 1520 | 621 | 40.9% | 700 | 290 | 41.4% | 820 | 331 | 40.4% | 0.67 |
| Highest educational attainment of head of household | 1509 | 692 | 817 | < | ||||||
| No formal education | 95 | 6.3% | 35 | 5.1% | 60 | 7.3% | ||||
| Some primary education | 792 | 52.5% | 315 | 45.5% | 477 | 58.4% | ||||
| Some secondary education | 487 | 32.3% | 250 | 36.1% | 237 | 29.0% | ||||
| Some college | 135 | 8.9% | 92 | 13.3% | 43 | 5.3% | ||||
| Malaria prevention practices | ||||||||||
| Total number of nets per household | 1546 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 726 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 820 | 1.5 | 1.2 |
|
| Respondent used a net night prior to study | 1548 | 986 | 63.7% | 728 | 463 | 63.6% | 820 | 523 | 63.8% | 0.94 |
| Other family members used a net night prior to study | 1548 | 917 | 59.2% | 728 | 414 | 56.9% | 820 | 503 | 61.3% | 0.07 |
| Ave. number of nets per person | 1520 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 700 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 820 | 0.4 | 0.4 | < |
| Household environmental characteristics (50 m buffer) | ||||||||||
| Within Blantyre city limits | 1548 | 532 | 34.4% | 728 | 352 | 48.4% | 820 | 180 | 22.0% | < |
| Increasing distance from city centre (2.5 km intervals) | 1548 | 728 | 820 | < | ||||||
| 2.5 km | 190 | 12.3% | 143 | 19.6% | 47 | 5.7% | ||||
| 5 km | 193 | 12.5% | 132 | 18.1% | 61 | 7.4% | ||||
| 7.5 km | 196 | 12.7% | 115 | 15.8% | 81 | 9.9% | ||||
| 10 km | 193 | 12.5% | 82 | 11.3% | 111 | 13.5% | ||||
| 12.5 km | 193 | 12.5% | 81 | 11.1% | 112 | 13.7% | ||||
| 15 km | 196 | 12.7% | 61 | 8.4% | 135 | 16.5% | ||||
| 17.5 km | 194 | 12.5% | 51 | 7.0% | 143 | 17.4% | ||||
| 20 km | 193 | 12.5% | 63 | 8.7% | 130 | 15.9% | ||||
| Section/region | 1548 | 728 | 820 | < | ||||||
| Lunzu (1) | 190 | 12.3% | 113 | 15.5% | 74 | 9.0% | ||||
| Chileka (2) | 193 | 12.5% | 106 | 14.6% | 84 | 10.2% | ||||
| Chilomoni (3) | 196 | 12.7% | 86 | 11.8% | 104 | 12.7% | ||||
| Mpemba (4) | 193 | 12.5% | 120 | 16.5% | 74 | 9.0% | ||||
| Chigumula (5) | 193 | 12.5% | 77 | 10.6% | 122 | 14.9% | ||||
| Mikolongwe (6) | 196 | 12.7% | 82 | 11.3% | 113 | 13.8% | ||||
| Kachere (7) | 194 | 12.5% | 84 | 11.5% | 115 | 14.0% | ||||
| Machinjiri (8) | 193 | 12.5% | 60 | 8.2% | 134 | 16.3% | ||||
| Rainy season (vs. dry) | 1548 | 618 | 39.9% | 728 | 124 | 17.0% | 820 | 494 | 60.2% | < |
| Elevation (m) | 1548 | 945.0 | 175.9 | 728 | 947.2 | 165.3 | 820 | 943.0 | 184.9 | 0.64 |
| Number nearby households | 1548 | 8.3 | 10.4 | 728 | 9.6 | 13.0 | 820 | 7.2 | 7.2 | < |
| Amount of land used for growing crops (%) | 1548 | 25.8 | 40.4 | 728 | 21.4 | 38.7 | 820 | 29.6 | 41.5 | < |
| NDVI (rainy season) | 1548 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 728 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 820 | 0.3 | 0.1 | < |
| NDVI category (rainy season) | 1548 | 728 | 820 | 0.20 | ||||||
| ≤ 0.1 (barren: rock/sand/urban) | 4 | 0.3% | 2 | 0.3% | 6 | 0.7% | ||||
| > 0.1 and ≤ 0.4 (shrub/grassland) | 1291 | 83.4% | 617 | 84.8% | 674 | 82.2% | ||||
| > 0.4 and ≤ 1 (temperate/tropical rainforest) | 251 | 16.2% | 107 | 14.7% | 144 | 17.6% | ||||
| NDVI (dry season) | 1548 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 728 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 820 | 0.2 | 0.0 | < |
| NDVI category (dry season) | 1548 | 728 | 820 | < | ||||||
| ≤ 0.1 (barren: rock/sand/urban) | 92 | 5.9% | 73 | 10.0% | 19 | 2.3% | ||||
| > 0.1 and ≤ 0.4 (shrub/grassland) | 1456 | 94.1% | 655 | 90.0% | 801 | 97.7% | ||||
| > 0.4 and ≤ 1 (temperate/tropical rainforest) | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | ||||
| Fruit trees | 1548 | 1134 | 73.3% | 728 | 439 | 60.3% | 820 | 695 | 84.8% | < |
| Grazing | 1548 | 275 | 17.8% | 728 | 217 | 8.7% | 820 | 212 | 25.9% | < |
| Forest | 1548 | 108 | 7.0% | 728 | 65 | 8.9% | 820 | 43 | 5.2% | < |
| Ownership of goats | 1546 | 221 | 14.3% | 726 | 76 | 10.5% | 820 | 145 | 17.7% | < |
| Ownership of chickens | 1546 | 582 | 37.6% | 726 | 248 | 34.2% | 820 | 334 | 40.7% |
|
| Housing construction | ||||||||||
| Closed (vs. fully/partially open) windows | 1527 | 175 | 11.5% | 719 | 93 | 12.9% | 808 | 82 | 10.2% | 0.09 |
| Closed (vs. fully/partially open) eaves | 1537 | 146 | 9.5% | 720 | 76 | 10.6% | 817 | 70 | 8.6% | 0.19 |
| Roof type | 1512 | 694 | 818 | < | ||||||
| Iron sheets | 1129 | 74.7% | 565 | 81.4% | 564 | 68.9% | ||||
| Thatched | 379 | 25.1% | 126 | 18.2% | 253 | 30.9% | ||||
| Tile | 4 | 0.3% | 3 | 0.4% | 1 | 0.1% | ||||
Italic values indicate significance of p value (p < 0.05)
Bivariate negative binomial models of association between species-specific mosquito abundances and various predictors
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95% CI | 95% CI | P value | ||
| Demographics | ||||
| Number of rooms | 0.8 (0.7, 0.9) | < | 0.7 (0.6, 0.8) |
|
| Number of children under age 5 | 1.9 (1.3, 2.7) | < | 1.9 (1.3, 2.8) | < |
| Number slept in the house | 1.0 (0.8, 1.1) | 0.75 | 0.9 (0.8, 1.1) | 0.42 |
| Age of household head (years) | 0.99 (0.98, 1.0) | 0.09 | 0.98 (0.97, 0.99) | < |
| Male head of household | 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) | 0.78 | 1.3 (0.8, 2.0) | 0.23 |
| Highest educational attainment of head of household | < |
| ||
| No formal education | Ref | Ref | ||
| Some primary education | 1.3 (0.5, 3.2) | 2.8 (1.2, 6.9) | ||
| Some secondary education | 0.5 (0.2, 1.3) | 1.6 (0.6, 4.0) | ||
| Some college | 0.4 (0.1, 1.2) | 0.2 (0.1, 0.6) | ||
| Malaria prevention practices | ||||
| Total number of nets per household | 0.8 (0.6, 0.9) |
| 0.7 (0.6, 0.9) | < |
| Respondent used a net night prior to study | 2.5 (1.5, 3.9) |
| 2.2 (1.4, 3.4) | < |
| Other family members used a net night prior to study | 3.2 (2.0, 4.9) |
| 2.5 (1.6, 3.9) |
|
| Ave. number of nets per person | 0.2 (0.1, 0.5) |
| 0.3 (0.2, 0.6) | < |
| Household environmental characteristics (50 m buffer) | ||||
| Within Blantyre city limits | 0.1 (0.1, 0.2) |
| 0.02 (0.01, 0.03) |
|
| Increasing distance from city centre (2.5 km intervals) | 1.5 (1.4, 1.7) |
| 1.7 (1.5, 1.9) |
|
| Section/region | ||||
| Lunzu (1) | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Chileka (2) | 1.1 (0.5, 2.6) | 0.75 | 1.8 (0.9, 3.6) | 0.08 |
| Chilomoni (3) | 1.0 (0.4, 2.4) | 0.97 | 1.1 (0.5, 2.1) | 0.87 |
| Mpemba (4) | 0.1 (0, 0.3) |
| 0.1 (0, 0.1) |
|
| Chigumula (5) | 0.2 (0.1, 0.4) |
| 0.1 (0, 0.1) |
|
| Mikolongwe (6) | 0.9 (0.4, 2.0) | 0.75 | 0.1 (0.1, 0.2) |
|
| Kachere (7) | 0.3 (0.1, 0.7) | < | 0 (0, 0.1) |
|
| Machinjiri (8) | 0.5 (0.2, 1.2) | 0.11 | 0.1 (0, 0.2) |
|
| Rainy (vs. dry) season | 46.1 (29.6, 71.6) |
| 15.3 (10.5, 22.4) |
|
| Elevation (m) | 0.996 (0.995, 0.997) |
| 0.992 (0.991, 0.993) |
|
| Number nearby households | 0.9 (0.9, 1.0) |
| 0.9 (0.8, 0.9) |
|
| Amount of land used for growing crops (%) | 2.3 (1.2, 4.2) | < | 1.8 (1.0, 3.1) |
|
| NDVI (rainy season) | 0.4 (0, 6.5) | 0.50 | 2.6 (0.2, 30.4) | 0.44 |
| NDVI category (rainy season) | ||||
| ≤ 0.1 (barren: rock/sand/urban) | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| > 0.1 and ≤ 0.4 (shrub/grassland) | 2.6 (0.1, 94.7) | 0.60 | 0.6 (0, 17.6) | 0.80 |
| > 0.4 and ≤ 1 (temperate/tropical rainforest) | 1.8 (0, 69.9) | 0.74 | 0.8 (0, 22.3) | 0.89 |
| NDVI (dry season) | 96.5 (0, 212,362.4) | 0.25 | 0.1 (0, 304.7) | 0.53 |
| NDVI category (dry season) | ||||
| ≤ 0.1 (barren: rock/sand/urban) | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| > 0.1 and ≤ 0.4 (shrub/grassland) | 19.4 (5.2, 72.1) | < | 111.6 (22, 566.7) | < |
| > 0.4 and ≤ 1 (temperate/tropical rainforest) | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Agriculture | 5.8 (3.8, 8.8) |
| 4.0 (2.6, 6.1) |
|
| Fruit trees | 0.9 (0.6, 1.6) | 0.82 | 0.8 (0.5, 1.2) | 0.27 |
| Grazing | 0.6 (0.3, 1.0) | 0.06 | 0.5 (0.3, 0.9) |
|
| Forest | 0.4 (0.2, 1.1) | 0.08 | 0.2 (0.1, 0.4) |
|
| Ownership of goats | 3.1 (1.7, 5.8) | < | 3.9 (2.1, 7.0) |
|
| Ownership of chickens | 1.3 (0.8, 2.1) | 0.25 | 1.7 (1.1, 2.6) |
|
| Housing construction | ||||
| Closed (vs. fully/partially open) windows | 0.9 (0.4, 1.8) | 0.72 | 0.5 (0.2, 0.9) |
|
| Closed (vs. fully/partially open) eaves | 2.0 (1.0, 4.3) | 0.06 | 2.2 (1.1, 4.5) |
|
| Roof type | ||||
| Iron sheets | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Thatched | 3.0 (1.8, 4.9) |
| 4.1 (2.5, 6.6) |
|
| Tile | 0.5 (0, 37.0) | 0.74 | 0.6 (0, 31.2) | 0.80 |
Italic values indicate significance of p value (p < 0.05)
Unadjusted multivariate negative binomial models of associations between Anopheles abundances, presence of small-scale agriculture, and urbanicity measures
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95% CI | P value | 95% CI | P value | |
| Model 1a | ||||
| Agriculture | 5.2 (3.4, 7.9) | < | 2.7 (1.8, 4.0) | < |
| Within city limits | 0.2 (0.1, 0.3) | < | 0.02 (0.01, 0.04) | < |
| Model 2a | ||||
| Agriculture | 5.6 (3.7, 8.6) | < | 3.4 (2.3, 5.1) | < |
| Increasing distance | 1.4 (1.3, 1.6) | < | 1.6 (1.4, 1.7) | < |
| Model 3a | ||||
| Agriculture | 5.5 (3.6, 8.4) | < | 3.7 (2.4, 5.6) | < |
| House densitya | 0.5 (0.4, 0.8) |
| 0.3 (0.2, 0.4) | < |
Italic values indicate significance of p value (p < 0.05)
aUnits are an additional 10 households within a 50 m radius of the sampled household
Multivariate negative binomial models of associations between Anopheles abundances, presence of small-scale agriculture, and urbanicity measures, adjusted for number of nets per person, number of children under 5 years old, education level, and rainy season
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95% CI | P value | 95% CI | P value | |
| Model 1b | ||||
| Agriculture | 1.4 (0.8, 2.2) | 0.21 | 0.6 (0.4, 0.9) |
|
| Within city limits | 0.2 (0.1, 0.2) | < | 0.02 (0.01, 0.04) | < |
| Model 2b | ||||
| Agriculture | 1.6 (1.0, 2.5) | 0.07 | 0.7 (0.4, 1.2) | 0.19 |
| Increasing distance | 1.3 (1.2, 1.5) | < | 1.4 (1.3, 1.6) | < |
| Model 3b | ||||
| Agriculture | 1.5 (1.0, 2.5) | 0.08 | 0.7 (0.5, 1.2) | 0.21 |
| House densitya | 0.5 (0.4, 0.7) | < | 0.2 (0.1, 0.3) | < |
Italic values indicate significance of p value (p < 0.05)
aUnits are an additional 10 households within a 50 m radius of the sampled household
Multivariate negative binomial models of associations and interactions between Anopheles abundances, presence of small-scale agriculture, and urbanicity measures
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95% CI | P value | 95% CI | P value | |
| Model 1c | ||||
| Agriculture | 3.8 (2.3, 6.2) | < | 2.7 (1.7, 4.2) | < |
| Within city limits | 0.1 (0, 0.2) | < | 0.02 (0.01, 0.05) | < |
| Agriculturea within city limits | 3.4 (1.2, 9.6) |
| 1.0 (0.4, 2.8) | 1.00 |
| Model 2c | ||||
| Agriculture | 15.6 (5.4, 45.2) | < | 8.2 (2.9, 23.8) | < |
| Increasing distance | 1.6 (1.4, 1.8) | < | 1.7 (1.5, 2.0) | < |
| Agriculturea increasing distance | 0.8 (0.7, 1.0) |
| 0.8 (0.7, 1.0) | 0.07 |
| Model 3c | ||||
| Agriculture | 5.3 (2.7, 10.5) | < | 4.2 (2.0, 8.9) |
|
| Housing density | 0.5 (0.3, 0.9) |
| 0.3 (0.2, 0.6) | < |
| Agriculturea house densitya | 1.0 (0.5, 2.2) | 0.91 | 0.8 (0.3, 2.0) | 0.65 |
Italic values indicate significance of p value (p < 0.05)
aUnits are an additional 10 households within a 50 m radius of the sampled household