Marceline F Finda1,2, Fredros O Okumu3,4,5,6, Elihaika Minja3, Rukiyah Njalambaha3, Winfrida Mponzi3, Brian B Tarimo3, Prosper Chaki3, Javier Lezaun7, Ann H Kelly8, Nicola Christofides4. 1. Environmental Health and Ecological Science Department, Ifakara Health Institute, P. O. Box 53, Ifakara, Tanzania. lfinda@ihi.or.tz. 2. School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 1 Smuts Avenue, 2000, Braamofontein, South Africa. lfinda@ihi.or.tz. 3. Environmental Health and Ecological Science Department, Ifakara Health Institute, P. O. Box 53, Ifakara, Tanzania. 4. School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 1 Smuts Avenue, 2000, Braamofontein, South Africa. 5. Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK. 6. School of Life Science and Bioengineering, The Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, P. O. Box 447, Arusha, Tanzania. 7. Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 8. Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Different forms of mosquito modifications are being considered as potential high-impact and low-cost tools for future malaria control in Africa. Although still under evaluation, the eventual success of these technologies will require high-level public acceptance. Understanding prevailing community perceptions of mosquito modification is, therefore, crucial for effective design and implementation of these interventions. This study investigated community perceptions regarding genetically-modified mosquitoes (GMMs) and their potential for malaria control in Tanzanian villages where no research or campaign for such technologies has yet been undertaken. METHODS: A mixed-methods design was used, involving: (i) focus group discussions (FGD) with community leaders to get insights on how they frame and would respond to GMMs, and (ii) structured questionnaires administered to 490 community members to assess awareness, perceptions and support for GMMs for malaria control. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the findings and thematic content analysis was used to identify key concepts and interpret the findings. RESULTS: Nearly all survey respondents were unaware of mosquito modification technologies for malaria control (94.3%), and reported no knowledge of their specific characteristics (97.3%). However, community leaders participating in FGDs offered a set of distinctive interpretive frames to conceptualize interventions relying on GMMs for malaria control. The participants commonly referenced their experiences of cross-breeding for selecting preferred traits in domestic plants and animals. Preferred GMMs attributes included the expected reductions in insecticide use and human labour. Population suppression approaches, requiring as few releases as possible, were favoured. Common concerns included whether the GMMs would look or behave differently than wild mosquitoes, and how the technology would be integrated into current malaria control policies. The participants emphasised the importance and the challenge of educating and engaging communities during the technology development. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how communities perceive and interpret novel technologies is crucial to the design and effective implementation of new vector control programmes. This study offers vital clues on how communities with no prior experience of modified mosquitoes might conceptualize or respond to such technologies when deployed in the context of malaria control programmes. Drawing upon existing interpretive frames and locally-resonant analogies when deploying such technologies may provide a basis for more durable public support in the future.
BACKGROUND: Different forms of mosquito modifications are being considered as potential high-impact and low-cost tools for future malaria control in Africa. Although still under evaluation, the eventual success of these technologies will require high-level public acceptance. Understanding prevailing community perceptions of mosquito modification is, therefore, crucial for effective design and implementation of these interventions. This study investigated community perceptions regarding genetically-modified mosquitoes (GMMs) and their potential for malaria control in Tanzanian villages where no research or campaign for such technologies has yet been undertaken. METHODS: A mixed-methods design was used, involving: (i) focus group discussions (FGD) with community leaders to get insights on how they frame and would respond to GMMs, and (ii) structured questionnaires administered to 490 community members to assess awareness, perceptions and support for GMMs for malaria control. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the findings and thematic content analysis was used to identify key concepts and interpret the findings. RESULTS: Nearly all survey respondents were unaware of mosquito modification technologies for malaria control (94.3%), and reported no knowledge of their specific characteristics (97.3%). However, community leaders participating in FGDs offered a set of distinctive interpretive frames to conceptualize interventions relying on GMMs for malaria control. The participants commonly referenced their experiences of cross-breeding for selecting preferred traits in domestic plants and animals. Preferred GMMs attributes included the expected reductions in insecticide use and human labour. Population suppression approaches, requiring as few releases as possible, were favoured. Common concerns included whether the GMMs would look or behave differently than wild mosquitoes, and how the technology would be integrated into current malaria control policies. The participants emphasised the importance and the challenge of educating and engaging communities during the technology development. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how communities perceive and interpret novel technologies is crucial to the design and effective implementation of new vector control programmes. This study offers vital clues on how communities with no prior experience of modified mosquitoes might conceptualize or respond to such technologies when deployed in the context of malaria control programmes. Drawing upon existing interpretive frames and locally-resonant analogies when deploying such technologies may provide a basis for more durable public support in the future.
Entities:
Keywords:
Community engagement; Gene drives; Genetically-modified mosquitoes; Malaria elimination; Public perceptions
Authors: Luciano A Moreira; Iñaki Iturbe-Ormaetxe; Jason A Jeffery; Guangjin Lu; Alyssa T Pyke; Lauren M Hedges; Bruno C Rocha; Sonja Hall-Mendelin; Andrew Day; Markus Riegler; Leon E Hugo; Karyn N Johnson; Brian H Kay; Elizabeth A McGraw; Andrew F van den Hurk; Peter A Ryan; Scott L O'Neill Journal: Cell Date: 2009-12-24 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Luke Alphey; Mark Benedict; Romeo Bellini; Gary G Clark; David A Dame; Mike W Service; Stephen L Dobson Journal: Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.133
Authors: Hoang Kim Phuc; Morten H Andreasen; Rosemary S Burton; Céline Vass; Matthew J Epton; Gavin Pape; Guoliang Fu; Kirsty C Condon; Sarah Scaife; Christl A Donnelly; Paul G Coleman; Helen White-Cooper; Luke Alphey Journal: BMC Biol Date: 2007-03-20 Impact factor: 7.431
Authors: Zawadi M Mboma; Hans J Overgaard; Sarah Moore; John Bradley; Jason Moore; Dennis J Massue; Karen Kramer; Jo Lines; Lena M Lorenz Journal: Malar J Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Marceline F Finda; Irene R Moshi; April Monroe; Alex J Limwagu; Anna P Nyoni; Johnson K Swai; Halfan S Ngowo; Elihaika G Minja; Lea P Toe; Emmanuel W Kaindoa; Maureen Coetzee; Lenore Manderson; Fredros O Okumu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-06-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Andrew Hammond; Roberto Galizi; Kyros Kyrou; Alekos Simoni; Carla Siniscalchi; Dimitris Katsanos; Matthew Gribble; Dean Baker; Eric Marois; Steven Russell; Austin Burt; Nikolai Windbichler; Andrea Crisanti; Tony Nolan Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Nancy S Matowo; Givemore Munhenga; Marcel Tanner; Maureen Coetzee; Wim F Feringa; Halfan S Ngowo; Lizette L Koekemoer; Fredros O Okumu Journal: Wellcome Open Res Date: 2017-10-02
Authors: Marceline F Finda; Fredros O Okumu; Elihaika Minja; Rukiyah Njalambaha; Winfrida Mponzi; Brian B Tarimo; Prosper Chaki; Javier Lezaun; Ann H Kelly; Nicola Christofdes Journal: Malar J Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 2.979