Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 6 Comparison of regional PfPR2–10, EA PfPR2–10 and MSP zones for predicting the likelihood of having IRS, an ITN or either intervention

From: A cross-sectional analysis of ITN and IRS coverage in Namibia in 2013

Models IRS ITN IRS and/or ITN
RR (95% CI) p-value LR test p-value RR (95% CI) p-value LR test p-value RR (95% CI) p-value LR test p-value
Model 1 Regional PfPR2–10 3.71 (2.29–6.02) < 0.001   2.20 (1.57–3.10) < 0.001   2.38 (1.78–3.19) < 0.001  
Model 2 Regional PfPR2–10 3.86 (2.29–6.53) < 0.001 0.7000 2.19 (1.54–3.13) < 0.001 0.9347 2.42 (1.79–3.27) < 0.001 0.7480
EA PfPR2–10 0.96 (0.76–1.20) 0.700 1.01 (0.89–1.13) 0.935 0.98 (0.89–1.08) 0.748
Model 3 Regional PfPR2–10 2.40 (1.41–4.10) 0.001 0.0091 1.43 (1.04–1.97) 0.029 0.0001 1.71 (1.31–2.34) < 0.001 < 0.0001
MSP zone 1.69 (1.15–2.50) 0.008 1.69 (1.31–2.18) < 0.001 1.50 (1.24–1.81) < 0.001
  1. Model 1, association between regional PfPR2–10 and interventions, adjusted for wealth and residence type, with region and enumeration area added as mixed effects; Model 2, same as Model 1 but additionally adjusted for EA PfPR2–10; Model 3, same as Model 1 but additionally adjusted for MSP zones; PfPR2–10, Plasmodium falciparum parasite rate in those aged 2–10 years; ITN, insecticide-treated net; IRS, indoor residual spraying, LR test, log-likelihood ratio test
  2. p-value corresponds to a log-likelihood ratio test where Models 2 and 3 are respectively nested in Model 1