Skip to main content

Table 5 Factors associated with Anopheline and Culicine detection sensitivity in wet habitats reported 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

   Anophelines    Culicines  
Variable % (n/N) OR [95%CI] P % (n/N) OR [95%CI] P
Habitat category NA NA 0.331 NA NA 0.421
Natural 22.2 (6/27) 1.00 [NA]a NAa 76.3 (29/38) 1.00 [NA]a NAa
Artificial agricultural 31.3 (5/16) 2.03 [0.397-10.375] 0.395 63.6 (7/11) 0.72 [0.220-2.366] 0.590
Artificial non-agricultural 33.3(18/54) 2.34 [0.7607.231] 0.138 71.4(225/315) 1.39 [0.714-2.688] 0.336
Intervention status NA NA 0.042 NA NA 0.005
Non-larviciding 40.0 (16/40) 1.00 [NA]a NAa 80.6 (137/170) 1.00 [NA]a NAa
larviciding 22.8 (13/57) 0.37 [0.142-0.965] 0.042 63.9 (124/194) 0.35 [0.167-0.722] 0.005
  1. The probability of mosquito larvae detected by the CORPs modelled with a binary distribution and logit link function using Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) treating intervention status and habitat category as the potential predictors.
  2. a; reference group for particular variable
  3. CI; confidence interval
  4. CORPs; community-owned resource persons
  5. N; the number of habitats that were reported to be wet by CORPs during routine habitat surveys and contained larvae during cross-sectional surveys
  6. n; the number of habitats where CORPs found larvae during their routine habitat survey,
  7. NA; Not applicable