| Literature DB >> 30518365 |
Frank Chacky1,2, Manuela Runge3,4, Susan F Rumisha5, Pendael Machafuko6, Prosper Chaki7, Julius J Massaga5, Ally Mohamed8,6, Emilie Pothin9,10, Fabrizio Molteni6,9,10, Robert W Snow11,12, Christian Lengeler9,10, Renata Mandike8,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A nationwide, school, malaria survey was implemented to assess the risk factors of malaria prevalence and bed net use among primary school children in mainland Tanzania. This allowed the mapping of malaria prevalence at council level and assessment of malaria risk factors among school children.Entities:
Keywords: Malaria; Malaria prevalence; Malaria surveillance; Mosquito net use; School children; Tanzania
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30518365 PMCID: PMC6280377 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-018-2601-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1Locations of sampled schools (N = 537) coloured by survey date
Multivariable regression models used in the present analysis
| Model I | Model II | |
|---|---|---|
| Regions | All | Excluding phase I data: Kigoma, Mtwara, Lindi, Ruvuma, Dar es Salaam |
| Number of observations | 47,157 (96%) | 30,715 (62.5%) |
| Variables | ||
| Included | Gender, age, bed net use or RDT result, type of council, altitude, geographic zone, TSI | Gender, age, reported parental education, bed net use or RDT result, type of council, altitude, eco-zone, geographic zone, TSI |
| Excluded | Reported parental education, eco-zone | |
| Random effects | Council, school | Council, school |
Number of included councils, schools and children, by transmission area
| Councils | Schools | Children | Total pop. (2010) *, % | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Children per council | N | Children per school | N | % | ||||||
| Mean | Min | Max | % | Mean | Min | Max | |||||
| Transmission zone* | |||||||||||
| Low stable | 30 | 253.5 | 111 | 546 | 88 | 86.4 | 44 | 166 | 7606 | 15.5 | 25.4 |
| Hypo-endemic 1 | 40 | 296.1 | 64 | 501 | 130 | 91.1 | 42 | 157 | 11,845 | 24.1 | 20.4 |
| Hypo-endemic 2 | 27 | 303.3 | 97 | 653 | 91 | 90 | 44 | 199 | 8188 | 16.7 | 13.3 |
| Meso-endemic | 67 | 316.5 | 89 | 1109 | 224 | 94.7 | 44 | 165 | 21,208 | 43.2 | 38.4 |
| Hyper-holo-endemic | 1 | 146 | 146 | 146 | 2 | 73 | 73 | 73 | 146 | 0.3 | 2.3 |
| Missing** | 1 | 120 | 120 | 120 | 2 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 120 | 0.2 | – |
| Total | 166 | 295.9 | 64 | 1109 | 537 | 91.5 | 42 | 199 | 49,113 | 100 | 100 |
* Source: Epidemiological profile Tanzania, 2013 [1]; ** no data for Mafia council in Pwani Region
Sample characteristics and risk factors for malaria infection and bed net use in school children in Tanzania
| Total children | Malaria (N = 49,102) | Bed net use (N = 47,800) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Children tested positive | Children sleeping under bed net | |||||||
| N | % | n | % | 95% CI | n | % | 95% CI | |
| Total | 49,113 | 100 | 10,627 | 22 | (19.6–23.9) | 33,284 | 70 | (67.6–71.6) |
| Gender | ||||||||
| Male | 24,205 | 49.3 | 5606 | 23.2 | (21.0–25.5) | 16,077 | 68.3 | (66.1–70.3) |
| Female | 24,681 | 50.3 | 4940 | 20.0 | (18.0–22.2) | 17,078 | 71.0 | (68.9–73) |
| Missing | 227 | 0.5 | 81 | 35.7 | – | 129 | 63.9 | – |
| Age | ||||||||
| < 9 | 9075 | 18.5 | 1651 | 18.2 | (16.1–20.5) | 5974 | 68.8 | (66.3–71.2) |
| 9–12 | 18,892 | 38.5 | 4045 | 21.4 | (19.2–23.8) | 13,106 | 71.2 | (69.2–73.3) |
| > 12 | 20,730 | 42.2 | 4847 | 23.4 | (21.2–25.7) | 13,957 | 68.6 | (66.3–70.8) |
| Missing | 416 | 0.9 | 84 | 20.2 | – | 247 | 62.7 | – |
| Parental education | ||||||||
| No school | 3736 | 7.6 | 1074 | 28.8 | (24.4–33.5) | 1930 | 54.7 | (50.2–59.1) |
| Primary | 23,445 | 47.7 | 5163 | 22.0 | (19.4–24.8) | 14,968 | 65.8 | (63.1–68.3) |
| Secondary | 4547 | 9.3 | 808 | 17.8 | (15.1–20.9) | 3430 | 77.5 | (74.8–80) |
| Diploma or higher | 525 | 1.1 | 52 | 9.9 | (7.0–13.9) | 415 | 80.7 | (76.1–84.7) |
| Missing | 5424 | 11.0 | 970 | 17.9 | – | 3617 | 69.7 | – |
| Not interviewed* | 11,436 | 23.3 | 2560 | 22.4 | – | 8924 | 78.4 | – |
| Bed net use | ||||||||
| No | 14,516 | 29.6 | 2943 | 20.3 | (17.8–23.0) | – | – | – |
| Yes | 33,284 | 67.8 | 7270 | 21.9 | (19.6–24.2) | – | – | – |
| Missing | 1313 | 2.7 | 414 | 31.5 | – | – | – | – |
| Zone | ||||||||
| Eastern | 6967 | 14.2 | 1269 | 18.2 | (13.3–24.4) | 5819 | 86.6 | (83.4–89.3) |
| Western | 4805 | 9.8 | 1449 | 30.2 | (25.5–35.2) | 3221 | 68.8 | (64–73.2) |
| Southern | 4002 | 8.1 | 1344 | 33.6 | (27.2–40.8) | 3255 | 81.6 | (76.8–85.6) |
| Southern highlands | 4116 | 8.4 | 495 | 12.0 | (7.2–19.4) | 2350 | 58.7 | (52.4–64.7) |
| Southwest highlands | 4867 | 9.9 | 846 | 17.4 | (11.6–25.2) | 2946 | 61.6 | (55.3–67.5) |
| Central | 5653 | 11.5 | 156 | 2.8 | (1.6–4.6) | 3077 | 55.1 | (49.6–60.5) |
| Northern | 6191 | 12.6 | 317 | 5.1 | (3.1–8.4) | 3360 | 55.6 | (49.4–61.7) |
| Lake | 12,512 | 25.5 | 4751 | 38.0 | (33.6–42.5) | 9256 | 77.2 | (73.1–80.8) |
| Missing | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | – | 0 | 0.0 | – |
| Area | ||||||||
| Urban | 9708 | 19.8 | 588 | 6.1 | (4.0–9.1) | 7866 | 82.2 | (78.7–85.2) |
| Rural | 39,405 | 80.2 | 10,039 | 25.5 | (23.1–28.0) | 25,418 | 66.5 | (64.1–68.8) |
| Missing | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | – | 0 | 0.0 | – |
| Eco-zone (tropical) * | ||||||||
| Dry forest | 7124 | 19.0 | 2247 | 31.5 | (25.9–37.8) | 5417 | 79.4 | (74.7–83.4) |
| Moist decid. forest | 5819 | 15.5 | 1816 | 31.2 | (25.1–38) | 3786 | 67.8 | (62–73.1) |
| Mountain system | 6053 | 16.1 | 723 | 11.9 | (7.9–17.6) | 3329 | 57.0 | (50.3–63.5) |
| Rainforest | 3331 | 8.9 | 1272 | 38.2 | (28.6–48.7) | 2664 | 82.8 | (76.3–87.8) |
| Scrubland | 15,216 | 40.5 | 2009 | 13.2 | (10.3–16.7) | 9078 | 61.2 | (57.4–64.9) |
| Missing | 11,570 | 23.6 | 2560 | 22.2 | – | 9010 | 77.9 | – |
| Altitude (m) | ||||||||
| < 750 | 13,228 | 26.9 | 3248 | 24.6 | (20.7–28.9) | 10,697 | 82.7 | (80.1–85) |
| 750–1250 | 18,901 | 38.5 | 5040 | 26.7 | (23.3–30.4) | 13,284 | 72.0 | (68.8–75) |
| 1250–1750 | 14,581 | 29.7 | 2335 | 16.0 | (12.6–20.1) | 8434 | 59.8 | (56–63.4) |
| > 1750 | 2403 | 4.9 | 4 | 0.2 | (0.1–0.5) | 869 | 37.8 | (30.5–45.7) |
| Missing | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | – | 0 | 0.0 | – |
* No data for children sampled in phase I
Fig. 2Malaria prevalence, bed net use, school absenteeism, and recent fever of school children compared by transmission zone. Error bars indicate 95% CI adjusted for school clustering
Fig. 3Bed net use, measured malaria prevalence, school absenteeism, and history of sickness in previous 2 weeks, by age. The error bars present the 95% CI adjusted for school clustering and the dashed line presents the mean for all ages
Multivariable analysis of the risk factors for malaria and bed net use in primary school children in Tanzania
| Outcome/covariates | Univariable | Model I (N = 47,157) | Model II (N = 30,715) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malaria | Malaria | Malaria | Bed net use | |||||
| OR (95% CI) | p- value | OR (95% CI) | p-value | OR (95% CI) | p-value | OR (95% CI) | p-value | |
| Gender | ||||||||
| Male vs female | 0.75 (0.71–0.79) | < 0.01 | 0.77 (0.72–0.81) | < 0.01 | 0.74 (0.69–0.79) | < 0.01 | 1.21 (1.14–1.28) | < 0.01 |
| Age (years) | ||||||||
| < 9 vs 10–12 | 1.06 (0.98–1.15) | 0.11 | 1.05 (0.96–1.14) | 0.36 | 1.03 (0.92–1.15) | 0.55 | 1.1 (1.01–1.20) | 0.02 |
| < 9 vs > 12 | 1.09 (1.01–1.18) | 1.06 (0.98–1.15) | 1.05 (0.95–1.17) | 1.12 (1.03–1.22) | ||||
| Parental education | ||||||||
| Primary vs no school | 1.18 (1.06–1.31) | < 0.01 | – | 1.18 (1.06–1.32) | < 0.01 | 0.69 (0.63–0.76) | < 0.01 | |
| Primary vs secondary or higher | 0.74 (0.67–0.82) | – | 0.75 (0.67–0.83) | 1.48 (1.35–1.61) | ||||
| Bed net use | ||||||||
| No vs yes | 0.76 (0.71–0.81) | < 0.01 | 0.76 (0.71–0.82) | < 0.01 | 0.81 (0.74–0.88) | < 0.01 | – | |
| Malaria | ||||||||
| Negative vs positive | – | – | – | 0.81 (0.74–0.88) | < 0.01 | |||
| Area | ||||||||
| Rural vs urban | 0.14 (0.05–0.38) | < 0.01 | 0.12 (0.066–0.21) | < 0.01 | 0.15 (0.072–0.29) | < 0.01 | 1.92 (1.25–2.94) | < 0.01 |
| Altitude (m) | ||||||||
| < 750 vs 750–1250 | 0.25 (0.12–0.48) | < 0.01 | 0.18 (0.081–0.39) | < 0.01 | 0.26 (0.11–0.62) | 0.02 | 0.43 (0.25–0.74) | 0.01 |
| < 750 vs 1250–1750 | 0.07 (0.04–0.15) | 0.12 (0.045–0.31) | 0.25 (0.088–0.72) | 0.27 (0.14–0.53) | ||||
| < 750 vs > 1750 | 0.002 (0.00–0.02) | 0.02 (0.003–0.14) | 0.07 (0.0093–0.47) | 0.12 (0.049–0.31) | ||||
| Temperature suitability index | ||||||||
| TSI (2er intervals) | 3.51 (2.80–4.39) | < 0.01 | – | < 0.01 | 2.2 (1.56–3.09) | < 0.01 | 1 (0.81–1.24) | 0.98 |
| Zone | ||||||||
| Central vs eastern | 28.15 (7.68–103.20) | < 0.01 | 1.86 (0.60–5.72) | < 0.01 | 2.11 (0.63–7.01) | < 0.01 | 2.13 (0.96–4.71) | < 0.01 |
| Central vs western | 59.21 (15.40–228.10) | 31.13 (11.6–83.4) | 11.21 (3.23–39.0) | 2.18 (0.91–5.19) | ||||
| Central vs southern | 72.58 (17.70–296.90) | 2.79 (0.83–9.33) | ||||||
| Central vs southern highlands | 2.13 (0.53–8.53) | 2.64 (0.91–7.67) | 0.41 (0.092–1.85) | 0.71 (0.33–1.52) | ||||
| Central vs southwest highlands | 10.33 (2.82–37.80) | 6.7 (2.52–17.9) | 3.19 (1.06–9.60) | 1.57 (0.78–3.15) | ||||
| Central vs northern | 1.05 (0.29–3.77) | 0.47 (0.17–1.31) | 0.43 (0.15–1.19) | 0.72 (0.40–1.30) | ||||
| Central vs lake | 69.76 (23.0–211.9) | 40.97 (18.0–93.4) | 24.43 (10.4–57.1) | 3.54 (2.03–6.18) | ||||
| Eco-zone (tropical) | ||||||||
| Scrubland vs dry forest | 4.92 (2.44–9.94) | < 0.01 | – | 2.06 (1.14–3.72) | 0.22 | 0.93 (0.61–1.41) | 0.81 | |
| Scrubland vs moist deci. forest | 4.98 (2.31–10.73) | – | 2.36 (1.21–4.60) | 0.89 (0.57–1.38) | ||||
| Scrubland vs mountain system | 0.56 (0.23–1.34) | – | 1.51 (0.68–3.38) | 1.01 (0.64–1.60) | ||||
| Scrubland vs rainforest | 7.63 (2.90–20.08) | – | 3.01 (1.41–6.40) | 1.33 (0.76–2.31) | ||||
Fig. 4Geographical distribution of the observed mean malaria prevalence among school children per council. The prevalence shown is the unadjusted observed prevalence, measured in different times of the year
Fig. 5Distribution of malaria prevalence in schools by region. The regions are sorted by regional mean malaria prevalence. Geita had the highest prevalence (53.7%) and Arusha the lowest prevalence (< 0.1%). The grey box visualizes the interquartile range (25–75%) of the school prevalence within each region. The horizontal line within the grey box is the median of the school prevalence distribution. The spikes mark the lowest and highest quartile. The points present outlying schools with prevalence higher or lower most of the rest of the prevalence (1.5 times the interquartile range above the upper quartile/below the lower quartile)