Participatory development of practical, affordable, insecticide-treated mosquito proofing for a range of housing designs in rural southern Tanzania

Table 2 Impact of screening with and without insecticide treatment upon the densities of Culex quinquefasciatus and Anopheles arabiensis as estimated with a separate generalized linear mixed model for each species

Mosquito taxon and treatment arm allocation	Post-intervention mosquito density expressed as absolute rates [95% CI] (Mosquitoes·house⁻¹ ·night⁻¹)	Estimated intervention effects expressed as relative rates [95% CI]	P
Culex quinquefasciatus
No screens	76 [66, 87]	1.00	NA
Screened but untreated	40 [35, 47]	0.53 [0.46, 0.62]	<< 0.0001
Screened and treated	41 [35, 48]	0.54 [0.46, 0.63]	<< 0.0001
Anopheles arabiensis
No screens	0.22 [0.13, 0.39]	1.00	NA
Screened but untreated	0.007 [0.003, 0.016]	0.029 [0.013, 0.065]	<< 0.0001
Screened and treated	0.005 [0.002, 0.014]	0.023 [0.010, 0.055]	<< 0.0001

Here the dependent variables were the numbers of mosquitoes collected indoors, screening status (treated and untreated screens pooled into a single category versus unscreened as the reference category) was the independent variable of interest

ISSN: 1475-2875