| Literature DB >> 31299976 |
Ismail Mahat Bashir1, Nancy Nyakoe2, Marianne van der Sande3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With an overall decline of malaria incidence, elimination of malaria is gradually becoming the next target for many of countries affected by the disease. In Kenya the national malaria control strategy is aiming to reach pre-elimination for most parts of the country. However, considerable heterogeneity in prevalence of the disease within the country and especially the remaining high prevalent region of the Lake endemic region is likely to slow progress towards this target. To achieve a sustained control and an eventual elimination, a clear understanding of drivers of ongoing malaria transmission in remaining hotspots is needed.Entities:
Keywords: Endemicity; Household survey; ITNs; Kenya; Malaria; Parasitaemia; Prevalence; Risk factors
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31299976 PMCID: PMC6624951 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-019-2876-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1Study areas showing the counties with the Lake endemic region
The definition of key variables on housing condition [8]
| Variable | Definition |
|---|---|
| Roof material | Traditional = (thatch/grass/makuti (interwoven palm tree leaves), and dung/mud/sod) Modern = (iron sheets, asbestos, concrete, tiles) |
| Wall material | Traditional = (cane/palms/trunks, dung/mud/sod, bamboo with mud, re-used wood) Modern = (iron sheets, cement, stone with cement, bricks, blocks, covered adobe, and wood planks) |
| Floor material | Traditional = (Earth/sand, dung, wood planks, palm/bamboo). Modern = (Polished wood, Vinyl PVC, asphalt, ceramics, cement and carpet) |
General characteristics of children from Lake endemic region enrolled in MIS 2015
| Characteristics | Number | % |
|---|---|---|
| Total number of children | 2442 | 22.0 |
| Age distribution | ||
| Below 5 years | 771 | 31.5 |
| 5–10 years | 877 | 36.0 |
| 10–14 years | 794 | 32.5 |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 1228 | 49.8 |
| Female | 1214 | 50.2 |
| Malaria | ||
| Number tested by microscopy | 2253 | 93 |
| Children with malaria | 604 | 27.3 |
| Place of residence | ||
| Rural | 1661 | 78.6 |
| Urban | 781 | 21.4 |
| Counties of origin | ||
| Siaya | 232 | 11.6 |
| Kisumu | 286 | 13.6 |
| Migori | 261 | 12.2 |
| Homabay | 321 | 13.4 |
| Kakamega | 330 | 14.6 |
| Vihiga | 233 | 11.0 |
| Bungoma | 272 | 10.9 |
| Busia | 292 | 12.1 |
Fig. 2a Prevalence of parasitaemia in counties within the Lake endemic region (counties in random sequence). b Prevalence of parasitaemia in counties within the Lake endemic region
Fig. 3The prevalence of parasitaemia in different age categories in children from the Lake endemic region of Kenya compared to the national trend of malaria parasitaemia. Time points indicate 2-year age brackets
Univariate and multivariate analysis of the risk factors for malaria in children in the Lake endemic region in Kenya
| Covariables | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted | Adjusted | |||
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |||
| Age groups | ||||
| 0–5 years | 1 (Reference) | 1 | ||
| 5–10 years | 2.03 (1.56–2.65) |
| 2.20 (1.69–2.87) |
|
| 10–14 years | 2.63 (1.93–3.58) |
| 3.04 (2.26–4.10) |
|
| Child’s gender | ||||
| Male | 1 | |||
| Female | 0.95 (0.80–1.12) | 0.330 | ||
| Gender—household head | ||||
| Male | 1 | 1 | ||
| Female | 0.73 (0.53–1.01) | 0.058 | 0.70 (0.51–0.96) |
|
| Education—household head | ||||
| No | 1 | 1 | ||
| Yes | 0.78 (0.58–1.06) | 0.115 | 0.88 (0.69–1.13) | 0.320 |
| Wealth Index—SES | ||||
| Poorest | 3.54 (1.93–6.50) |
| 2.06 (1.30–3.27) |
|
| Poorer | 2.52 (1.49–4.26) |
| 1.50 (0.93–2.41) | 0.091 |
| Middle | 2.24 (1.45–3.46) |
| 1.50 (0.99–2.29) | 0.054 |
| Rich | 1 | 1 | ||
| Bed–net ownership | ||||
| Owns a bed net | 0.67 (0.41–1.08) | 0.101 | 0.74 (0.44–1.24) | 0.251 |
| Slept under LLIN | 0.63 (0.47–0.85) |
| 0.69 (0.55–0.87) |
|
| Floor material | ||||
| Modern | 1 | 1 | ||
| Traditional | 3.12 (2.58–3.78) |
| 1.62 (1.08–2.45) |
|
| Main wall material | ||||
| Modern | 1 | 1 | ||
| Traditional | 2.66 (2.19–3.23) |
| 1.64 (0.88–2.96) | 0.115 |
| Roofing material | ||||
| Modern | 1 | 1 | ||
| Traditional | 2.52 (1.90–3.34) |
| 1.54 (1.02–2.34) |
|
| Source of water | ||||
| Piped | 1 | |||
| Wells/boreholes | 1.32 (0.70–2.47) | 0.378 | ||
| River/canal | 1.33 (0.77–2.31) | 0.302 | ||
| Does not practice agriculture | 1 | 1 | ||
| Practices agriculture | 2.34 (1.64–3.34) |
|
|
|
| Does not own a livestock | 1 | 1 | ||
| Owns livestock | 1.33 (0.98–1.81) | 0.064 | 1.01 (0.74–1.39) | 0.941 |
| Residence | ||||
| Urban | 1 | 1 | ||
| Rural | 2.88 (1.40–5.92) |
| 1.68 (0.96–2.95) | 0.059 |
| Counties | ||||
| Bungoma | 1 | 1 | ||
| Siaya | 2.45 (1.25–4.78) |
| 3.40 (1.70–6.83) |
|
| Kisumu | 1.64 (0.54–5.00) | 0.378 | 2.58 (0.87–7.61) | 0.085 |
| Migori | 2.54 (0.87–7.42) | 0.086 | 4.64 (2.09–10.30) |
|
| Homabay | 1.63 (0.84–3.16) | 0.144 | 2.18 (1.13–4.24) |
|
| Kakamega | 2.61 (1.18–5.79) |
| 2.65 (1.29–5.43) |
|
| Vihiga | 1.41 (0.45–3.25) | 0.698 | 1.40 (0.48–4.07) | 0.532 |
| Busia | 4.09 (1.91–8.75) |
| 4.12 (2.07–8.19) |
|
SES: Socio-economic status, P values less than 0.05 are highlighted in italics
Fig. 4Plot of adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence interval for risk factors in the final model in the Lake endemic malaria region of Kenya