Skip to main content

Table 3 House eaves screening impact on malaria parasite prevalence rate in the study area

From: Evaluating effectiveness of screening house eaves as a potential intervention for reducing indoor vector densities and malaria prevalence in Nyabondo, western Kenya

Characteristic Baseline survey 1st follow-up 2nd follow-up 3rd follow-up Overall
With baseline Without baseline
Malaria parasite prevalence, % (95% CI)*
Control 5.2 (3.4–8.1) 6.9 (5.0–9.4) 10.1 (6.6–15.3) 4.1 (2.2–7.9) 6.3 (4.8–8.3) 6.7 (4.9–9.2)
Experimental 10 (4.5–22.2) 0 3.7 (1.3–10.7) 0 3.0 (1.5–6.0) 1.4 (0.4–4.5)
Risk reduction, % (p value) Increase 100% (p < 0.001) 63.6% (p = 0.026) 100% (p < 0.001) 52.4% (p = 0.019) 79.1% (p = 0.006)
Total prevalence 6.1 (3.9–9.4) 4.6 (3.5–5.9) 8.2 (5.1–13.2) 3.6 (2.0–6.8) 5.6 (4.2–7.5) 5.4 (3.9–7.5)
House screening impact on malaria parasite prevalence, OR (95% CI), p value@  
Control Reference      
Experimental 2.01 (0.88–4.57), p = 0.096 0, p < 0.001 0.35 (0.14–0.85), p = 0.021 0, p < 0.001 0.46 (0.24–0.87), p = 0.017 0.20 (0.06–0.61), p = 0.005
  1. *Malaria parasite prevalence was calculated and 95% confidence intervals estimated using binomial logistic regression model while accounting for house clustering
  2. @The impact of house screening on malaria prevalence was calculated and odds ratios (ORs) estimated using multilevel mixed effects logistic regression model while accounting for house clustering