Skip to main content

Table 3 Factors associated with habitat detection coverage by CORPs.

From: Achieving high coverage of larval-stage mosquito surveillance: challenges for a community-based mosquito control programme in urban Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Variable % (n/N) OR [95%CI] P
Habitat category NA NA 0.053
   Natural 66.4 (146/220) 1.00a NA
   Artificial non-agricultural 66.1(1766/266) 0.60 [0.406,0.909] 0.015
   Artificial agricultural 57.9 (44/76) 1.38 [0.607,3.143] 0.441
CORPs familiarity with plot NA NA < 0.001
   No evidence of unfamiliarity 75.8(1788/235) 1.00a NA
   Clear evidence of unfamiliarity 27.6 (168/608) 0.16 [0.130,0.203] < 0.001
Intervention status NA NA 0.978
   Non-larviciding 72.4 (775/1070) 1.00a NA
   Larviciding 62.3(1181/189) 0.99 [0.645,1.548] 0.997
  1. The probability that a wet habitat was detected by the CORPs was modelled with a binary distribution and logit link function using Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) treating intervention status, CORPs' unfamiliarity with the plots and habitat category as the potential predictors
  2. a the reference group for the particular variable,
  3. CI; confidence interval,
  4. CORPs; community-owned resource persons
  5. N; the number of wet habitats found during cross-sectional surveys
  6. n; the number of wet habitats found by the CORPs during their routine habitat survey,
  7. NA; Not applicable
  8. OR; Odds ratios,