Skip to main content

Table 4 Effect of the four treatment interventions on PfPR and adjusted for risk factors based on the school surveys in Malindi, Nyabondo and Tolay study sites

From: Evaluating the impact of larviciding with Bti and community education and mobilization as supplementary integrated vector management interventions for malaria control in Kenya and Ethiopia

 

Schools (children)

Year 1: 2013

Year 2: 2014

Year 3: 2015

Overall

PfPR % [95% CI]b

PfPR % [95% CI]b

PfPR % [95% CI]b

PfPR % [95% CI]b

Multivariablea

aOR [95% CI], p-value

Overall

38 (11,846)

5.4 (2.4–12.1)

6.9 (4.4–10.7)

23.9 (16.2–35.1)

13.3 (8.8–20.0)

 

Malindi

10 (3000)

5.4 (2.4–12.1)

7.9 (4.4–14.2)

3.7 (1.9–7.2)

5.7 (3.1–10.4)

Reference

Nyabondo

12 (4046)

15.7 (10.9–22.6)

49.5 (41.5–58.9)

32.4 (26.1–40.1)

9.1 (7.6–10.9), p < 0.001

Tolay

16 (4800)

1.0 (0.7–1.4)

3.2 (2.5–4.1)

1.7 (1.4–2.1)

0.3 (0.2–0.4), p < 0.001

Study arm

Overall

 Arm 1

19 (3240)

1.6 (0.6–4.0)

6.1 (3.0–12.3)

13.0 (5.6–30.3)

7.7 (3.8–15.5)

Reference

 Arm 2

18 (2942)

12.0 (4.4–32.6)

9.3 (4.6–18.6)

28.1 (15.6–50.5)

17.1 (9.5–30.7)

2.1 (1.7–2.5), p < 0.001

 Arm 3

15 (2193)

4.0 (3.8–4.2)

4.1 (1.8–9.1)

19.6 (8.8–44.0)

10.4 (4.3–24.9)

0.9 (0.7–1.1), p = 0.356

 Arm 4

16 (2643)

6.0 (5.6–6.3)

5.8 (2.8–11.8)

35.2 (21.1–58.7)

19.3 (10.3–36.1)

1.7 (1.4–2.0), p < 0.001

Malindi

 Arm 1

5 (1500)

1.6 (0.6–4.0)

5.8 (1.7–20.2)

2.0 (1.0–4.0)

3.1 (1.1–8.9)

Reference

 Arm 2

3 (900)

12.0 (4.4–32.6)

13.3 (7.7–23.0)

7.7 (3.3–17.7)

11.0 (5.4–22.5)

3.8 (2.7–5.5), p < 0.001

 Arm 3

1 (300)

4.0 (3.8–4.2)

2.0 (1.8–2.2)

1.0 (0.8–1.2)

2.3 (2.0–2.6)

0.7 (0.3–1.7), p = 0.460

 Arm 4

1 (300)

6.0 (5.6–6.3)

8.0 (7.6–8.2)

3.0 (2.4–3.4)

5.7 (5.2–6.0)

1.9 (1.1–3.3), p = 0.033

Nyabondo

 Arm 1

2 (400)

18.5 (9.7–35.0)

47.3 (35.8–62.3)

31.1 (21.2–45.6)

Reference

 Arm 2

4 (1380)

24.5 (18.2–33.0)

61.6 (46.0–82.4)

45.6 (37.0–56.2)

1.9 (1.5–2.3), p < 0.001

 Arm 3

2 (816)

14.0 (10.3–18.9)

40.8 (28.1–59.3)

29.1 (20.3–41.8)

0.9 (0.7–1.2), p = 0.456

 Arm 4

4 (1450)

14.6 (9.9–21.5)

58.4 (46.9–72.7)

41.8 (35.6–49.1)

1.6 (1.3–2.0), p < 0.001

Tolay

 Arm 1

4 (1200)

1.6 (1.2–2.2)

4.3 (3.7–5.0)

2.4 (1.9–2.9)

Reference

 Arm 2

4 (1200)

0.9 (0.4–2.0)

3.3 (1.5–6.9)

1.7 (1.0–2.9)

0.7 (0.4–1.3), p = 0.235

 Arm 3

4 (1200)

0.6 (0.2–1.7)

3.5 (3.0–4.1)

1.6 (1.2–2.2)

0.6 (0.4–1.2), p = 0.180

 Arm 4

4 (1200)

0.8 (0.3–1.7)

2.0 (1.0–4.0)

1.2 (1.0–1.4)

0.5 (0.3–0.9), p = 0.032

Age (years)

 ≤ 5

739 (6.3%)

2.6 (0.2–30.6)

7.1 (3.9–13.0)

52.3 (39.2–69.8)

36.0 (26.1–49.7)

2.3 (1.8–2.8), p < 0.001

 6–10

6787 (57.8%)

5.5 (2.4–12.6)

9.4 (6.4–14.0)

26.0 (17.5–38.6)

15.5 (10.5–22.8)

1.6 (1.3–1.9), p < 0.001

 > 10

4216 (35.9%)

6.7 (1.3–33.9)

4.1 (2.3–7.2)

9.4 (5.4–16.3)

5.8 (3.4–9.9)

Reference

Gender

 Male

6021 (51.4%)

6.1 (2.6–14.1)

7.5 (4.7–12.0)

23.1 (15.7–34.0)

13.5 (9.0–20.4)

1.1 (0.9–1.2), p = 0.635

 Female

5704 (48.7%)

4.7 (1.9–11.5)

6.3 (4.2–9.7)

24.7 (16.7–36.5)

13.0 (8.6–19.8)

Reference

  1. aEffects of interventions on malaria prevalence was analyzed using logistic regression model
  2. bMalaria prevalence was analyzed using binomial logistic regression model taking into account school clusters
  3. –: No data collection took place at those time points
  4. Arm 1 referred to LLINs only; Arm 2 combination of LLINs and Bti; Arm 3 combination of LLINs and CEM; and Arm 4 combination of LLINs, Bti, and CEM