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