Table 2 Characteristics of border malaria
From: Border malaria: defining the problem to address the challenge of malaria elimination
Factors | Examples | Frequency | Refs. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Receptivity in border areas (intrinsic transmission potential) | ||||
 High original endemicity | Iran border, China (Yunnan) border, Saudi Arabian border, Namibian border |  +  +  | ||
 More efficient vector(s) | Saudi Arabia, China (Yunnan), Iran |  +  +  | ||
 Being forest areas | Greater Mekong Subregion countries, American countries |  +  +  | ||
Social, economic and political environment | ||||
 Border areas being poorer areas in the eliminating country | Namibia, Saudi Arabia, China (Yunnan), Iran (Baluchistan), |  +  +  +  | ||
 Conflicts, political unrest, security issues | Saudi Arabia–Yemen border, Bhutan–India border, China–Myanmar border, Bangladesh–Myanmar border, Thailand–Myanmar border, Pakistan–Iran border |  +  +  | ||
Malaria epidemiology | ||||
 Straddled foci across international land borders | The borders between Argentina and Bolivia, Peru-Ecuador, China-Myanmar, Bhutan-India, Tajikistan-Afghanistan |  +  +  |  | |
 Two sides of the border are within one ecological zone | Greater Mekong Subregion countries, American countries |  +  +  +  | ||
 Existence of a transmission gradient in two neighboring countries | All above mentioned borders |  +  +  +  | ||
Cross-border movement | ||||
 Short-term, cyclical, frequent | China–Myanmar border, Bhutan–India border, Iran–Pakistan border, Namibia–Angola; Saudi Arabia–Yemen |  +  +  +  |  | |
 Borders are not controlled | As above |  | ||