Table 1 Estimated impact of trap type, intervention status, and the interaction between trap type and intervention status on An. minimus catches, for Eto R and VPSR.
| Â | Eto R | VPSR | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Factor | OR (95% CI) | p | % protective efficacy | Factor | OR (95% CI) | p | % Protective efficacy | |
Mosquito captures in control HLC compared to control HDN | HDN | 1 | Â | Â | HDN | 1 | Â | Â |
HLC | 0.42 (0.34–0.51) | <0.0001 |  | HLC | 2.18 (1.74 – 2.72) |  < 0.001 |  | |
Effect of intervention on landing when using HLC | Control | 1 | Â | Â | Control | 1 | Â | Â |
ITC | 0.30 (0.23, 0.40) |  < 0.001 | 70% (60–77) decrease in odds of landing | VPSR | 0.007 (0.005, 0.01) |  < 0.001 | 99.3% (99.0–99.5) decrease in odds of landing | |
Effect of intervention on landing when using HDN | Control | 1 | Â | Â | Control | 1 | Â | Â |
ITC | 1.04 (0.85, 1.27) | 0.69 | 4% (15% decrease to 27% increase in odds of landing) | VPSR | 8.72e-14 (0, Inf) 0 mosquitoes were collected via HDN across all 8 replicates when using VPSR | 0.99 | 100% (100 -Inf) decrease in odds of landing | |
OR for intervention measured by HDN compared to OR for intervention measured by HLC (ratio of ORs) | ITC | 3.17 (2.27, 4.43) |  < 0.001 |  | VPSR | 3.21 (0, Inf) | 0.99 |  |