Cost of community-led larval source management and house improvement for malaria control: a cost analysis within a cluster-randomized trial in a rural district in Malawi

Assessing the implementation fidelity, feasibility, and sustainability of community-based house improvement for malaria control in southern Malawi: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Despite significant success in the fight against malaria over the past two decades, malaria control programmes rely on only two insecticidal methods: indoor residual spraying and insecticidal-treated nets. House improvement (HI) can complement these interventions by reducing human-mosquito contact, thereby reinforcing the gains in disease reduction. This study assessed the implementation fidelity, which is the assessment of how closely an intervention aligns with its intended design, feasibility, and sustainability of community-led HI in southern Malawi.

METHODS

The study, conducted in 22 villages (2730 households), employed a mixed-methods approach. Implementation fidelity was assessed using a modified framework, with longitudinal surveys collecting data on HI coverage indicators. Quantitative analysis, employing descriptive statistics, evaluated the adherence to HI implementation. Qualitative data came from in-depth interviews, key informant interviews, and focus groups involving project beneficiaries and implementers. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis guided by the implementation fidelity model to explore facilitators, challenges, and factors affecting intervention feasibility.

RESULTS

The results show that HI was implemented as planned. There was good adherence to the intended community-led HI design; however, the adherence could have been higher but gradually declined over time. In terms of intervention implementation, 74% of houses had attempted to have eaves closed in 2016-17 and 2017-18, compared to 70% in 2018-19. In 2016-17, 42% of houses had all four sides of the eaves closed, compared to 33% in 2018-19. Approximately 72% of houses were screened with gauze wire in 2016-17, compared to 57% in 2018-19. High costs, supply shortages, labour demands, volunteers' poor living conditions and adverse weather were reported to hinder the ideal HI implementation. Overall, the community described community-led HI as feasible and could be sustained by addressing these socioeconomic and contextual challenges.

CONCLUSION

Our study found that although HI was initially implemented as planned, its fidelity declined over time. Using trained volunteers facilitated the fidelity and feasibility of implementing the intervention. A combination of rigorous community education, consistent training, information, education and communication, and intervention modifications may be necessary to address the challenges and enhance the intervention's fidelity, feasibility, and sustainability.

Cost and quality of operational larviciding using drones and smartphone technology

BACKGROUND

Larval Source Management (LSM) is an important tool for malaria vector control and is recommended by WHO as a supplementary vector control measure. LSM has contributed in many successful attempts to eliminate the disease across the Globe. However, this approach is typically labour-intensive, largely due to the difficulties in locating and mapping potential malarial mosquito breeding sites. Previous studies have demonstrated the potential for drone imaging technology to map malaria vector breeding sites. However, key questions remain unanswered related to the use and cost of this technology within operational vector control.

METHODS

Using Zanzibar (United Republic of Tanzania) as a demonstration site, a protocol was collaboratively designed that employs drones and smartphones for supporting operational LSM, termed the Spatial Intelligence System (SIS). SIS was evaluated over a four-month LSM programme by comparing key mapping accuracy indicators and relative costs (both mapping costs and intervention costs) against conventional ground-based methods. Additionally, malaria case incidence was compared between the SIS and conventional study areas, including an estimation of the incremental cost-effectiveness of switching from conventional to SIS larviciding.

RESULTS

The results demonstrate that the SIS approach is significantly more accurate than a conventional approach for mapping potential breeding sites: mean % correct per site: SIS = 60% (95% CI 32-88%, p = 0.02), conventional = 18% (95% CI - 3-39%). Whilst SIS cost more in the start-up phase, overall annualized costs were similar to the conventional approach, with a simulated cost per person protected per year of $3.69 ($0.32 to $15.12) for conventional and $3.94 ($0.342 to $16.27) for SIS larviciding. The main economic benefits were reduced labour costs associated with SIS in the pre-intervention baseline mapping of habitats. There was no difference in malaria case incidence between the three arms. Cost effectiveness analysis showed that SIS is likely to provide similar health benefits at similar costs compared to the conventional arm.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of drones and smartphones provides an improved means of mapping breeding sites for use in operational LSM. Furthermore, deploying this technology does not appear to be more costly than a conventional ground-based approach and, as such, may represent an important tool for Malaria Control Programmes that plan to implement LSM.

Environmental determinants and risk behaviour in the case of indigenous malaria in Muara Enim Regency, Indonesia: A case-control design

INTRODUCTION

Malaria is a significant public health concern in Indonesia. Muara Enim Regency is one of the districts in South Sumatra with the most important number of indigenous malaria cases in the last three years (2018-2020). Therefore, this study aimed to identify determinants of indigenous malaria in the Muara Enim Regency.

METHODS

This study was designed as a case-control study. A stratified random sample in 2018, 2019, and 2020 was used at the Primary Health Centres (PHCs) areas of Tanjung Enim and Tanjung Agung. The sample included 49 cases and 49 controls. Indigenous malaria determinants were discovered using both bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULT

The multivariable logistic regression model results show that mosquito repellent reduces malaria risk by 71% (AOR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.64). Besides, the presence of wire mesh on ventilation reduces the risk of malaria by 76% (AOR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.10-0.57), and the distance from mosquito breeding sites near hundred meters and fewer increases the risk of malaria by 3.88 fold (AOR = 3.88; 95% CI: 1.67-8.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Multivariable analysis revealed distance from mosquito breeding sites as a risk factor for malaria. Besides, the study shows that using insect repellent, wire netting in ventilation, eliminating mosquito breeding sites, mosquito repellent or protective clothing, and improving house conditions were protective factors for indigenous malaria. Therefore, preventive and promotional efforts are essential as the first step toward malaria elimination at the study site, including avoiding direct contact between residents and vectors near mosquito breeding sites.

Local resource mobilization for malaria vector control among Rwandan rice farmers: a pilot study into the role of community ownership

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests a vicious cycle between rice cultivation and malaria control in Rwanda. Rice fields offer an attractive breeding ground for malaria vectors, which increases the disease burden in rice farming communities, and, consequently, reduces productivity in the rice sector. Community-based larval source management in rice fields is propagated as a sustainable solution to break this cycle. A sense of agency and ownership of malaria control interventions, as well as the mobilization of resources at the local level, are often considered preconditions for success. However, an evidence gap exists regarding the interaction between the agentive and financial dimension of local sustainability.

METHODS

We conduct a larviciding pilot involving three groups; one group where rice farmers sprayed their fields under expert supervision, one group where rice farmers organised the larviciding campaign themselves, and a (non-sprayed) control group. We test whether the difference in agency between the intervention groups affects farmers' willingness-to-pay for a larviciding campaign. Willingness-to-pay is elicited in a contingent valuation exercise, more specifically a bidding game, and is assessed both before and after the pilot (n = 288). Difference-in-difference estimates are computed, using a propensity score matching technique. Supplementary data were collected in a survey and two focus group discussions for triangulation.

RESULTS

The high-agency (self-organised) group significantly outperforms the low-agency (expert-supervised) group in terms of maintaining its willingness to contribute financially. However, higher willingness-to-pay in the high-agency group does not appear to be driven by a stronger sense of ownership per se. The supplementary data indicate high levels of ownership in both treatment groups compared to the control group. A tentative explanation lies in diverging perceptions concerning the effectiveness of the pilot.

CONCLUSIONS

The study supports the idea that community-led organization of larval source management can prove instrumental in mobilizing finance for malaria control in low-income settings where rice production interferes with the fight against malaria. However, the causality is complex. Feelings of ownership do not appear the main driver of willingness-to-pay, at least not directly, which opens up the possibility of initiating community-driven malaria control interventions that promote the agentive and financial dimension of local sustainability simultaneously.

Mosquito aquatic habitat modification and manipulation interventions to control malaria

BACKGROUND

Larval source management (LSM) may help reduce Plasmodium parasite transmission in malaria-endemic areas. LSM approaches include habitat modification (permanently or temporarily reducing mosquito breeding aquatic habitats); habitat manipulation (temporary or recurrent change to environment); or use of chemical (e.g. larviciding) or biological agents (e.g. natural predators) to breeding sites. We examined the effectiveness of habitat modification or manipulation (or both), with and without larviciding. This is an update of a review published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

1. To describe and summarize the interventions on mosquito aquatic habitat modification or mosquito aquatic habitat manipulation, or both, on malaria control. 2. To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of mosquito aquatic habitat modification or mosquito aquatic habitat manipulation, or both, on malaria control.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was from January 2012 to 30 November 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomized intervention studies comparing mosquito aquatic habitat modification or manipulation (or both) to no treatment or another active intervention. We also included uncontrolled before-after (BA) studies, but only described and summarized the interventions from studies with these designs. Primary outcomes were clinical malaria incidence, malaria parasite prevalence, and malaria parasitaemia incidence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized intervention studies. We used a narrative synthesis approach to systematically describe and summarize all the interventions included within the review, categorized by the type of intervention (habitat modification, habitat manipulation, combination of habitat modification and manipulation). Our primary outcomes were 1. clinical malaria incidence; 2. malaria parasite prevalence; and 3. malaria parasitaemia incidence. Our secondary outcomes were 1. incidence of severe malaria; 2. anaemia prevalence; 3. mean haemoglobin levels; 4. mortality rate due to malaria; 5. hospital admissions for malaria; 6. density of immature mosquitoes; 7. density of adult mosquitoes; 8. sporozoite rate; 9. entomological inoculation rate; and 10.

HARMS

We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each type of intervention.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Six used an RCT design, six used a controlled before-after (CBA) study design, three used a non-randomized controlled design, and one used an uncontrolled BA study design. Eleven studies were conducted in Africa and five in Asia. Five studies reported epidemiological outcomes and 15 studies reported entomological outcomes. None of the included studies reported on the environmental impacts associated with the intervention. For risk of bias, all trials had some concerns and other designs ranging from moderate to critical. Ten studies assessed habitat manipulation (temporary change to the environment). This included water management (spillways across streams; floodgates; intermittent flooding; different drawdown rates of water; different flooding and draining regimens), shading management (shading of drainage channels with different plants), other/combined management approaches (minimal tillage; disturbance of aquatic habitats with grass clearing and water replenishment), which showed mixed results for entomological outcomes. Spillways across streams, faster drawdown rates of water, shading drainage canals with Napier grass, and using minimal tillage may reduce the density of immature mosquitoes (range of effects from 95% reduction to 1.7 times increase; low-certainty evidence), and spillways across streams may reduce densities of adult mosquitoes compared to no intervention (low-certainty evidence). However, the effect of habitat manipulation on malaria parasite prevalence and clinical malaria incidence is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Two studies assessed habitat manipulation with larviciding. This included reducing or removal of habitat sites; and drain cleaning, grass cutting, and minor repairs. It is uncertain whether drain cleaning, grass cutting, and minor repairs reduces malaria parasite prevalence compared to no intervention (odds ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.83; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies assessed combination of habitat manipulation and permanent change (habitat modification). This included drainage canals, filling, and planting of papyrus and other reeds for shading near dams; and drainage of canals, removal of debris, land levelling, and filling ditches. Studies did not report on epidemiological outcomes, but entomological outcomes suggest that such activities may reduce the density of adult mosquitoes compared to no intervention (relative risk reduction 0.49, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.50; low-certainty evidence), and preventing water stagnating using drainage of canals, removal of debris, land levelling, and filling ditches may reduce the density of immature mosquitoes compared to no intervention (ranged from 10% to 55% reductions; low-certainty evidence). Three studies assessed combining manipulation and modification with larviciding. This included filling or drainage of water bodies; filling, draining, or elimination of rain pools and puddles at water supply points and stream bed pools; and shoreline work, improvement and maintenance to drainage, clearing vegetation and undergrowth, and filling pools. There were mixed effect sizes for the reduction of entomological outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence). However, filling or draining water bodies probably makes little or no difference to malaria parasite prevalence, haemoglobin levels, or entomological inoculation rate when delivered with larviciding compared to no intervention (moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Habitat modification and manipulation interventions for preventing malaria has some indication of benefit in both epidemiological and entomological outcomes. While the data are quite mixed and further studies could help improve the knowledge base, these varied approaches may be useful in some circumstances.

Knowledge, practices and perceptions of communities during a malaria larviciding randomized trial in the city of Yaoundé, Cameroon

Background

Urban malaria is becoming a major public health concern in major cities in Cameroon. To improve malaria vector control, a pilot larviciding trial was conducted to assess its impact on mosquito density and malaria transmission intensity in Yaoundé. The present study investigated perceptions and practices of communities on malaria control during the larviciding trial implemented in Yaoundé.

Methods

Quantitative and qualitative data were collected in non-intervention and intervention areas. Quantitative data were collected during three cross-sectional surveys using a structured pre-tested questionnaire while qualitative data were obtained through interviews. A total of 26 in-depth interviews and eight focus group discussions with community members were performed. A binary logistic regression model was used to assess the perception of the community on larviciding impact on some malaria or bed nets use indicators.

Results

People living in intervention areas were 2.64 times more likely to know the mode of malaria transmission (95% CI: 1.82–3.84; p<0.001) and 1.3 time more likely to know mosquito breeding habitats (95% CI: 1.06–1.56; p = 0.009) compared to those living in non-intervention areas. In intervention areas, interviewee opinions on larviciding were generally good i.e. most interviewees reported having noticed a reduction in mosquito nuisance and malaria cases following larviciding implementation; whereas in non-intervention areas no report of reduction of mosquito nuisance was recorded. LLINs were regularly used by the population despite the implementation of larviciding treatments. There was high interest in larviciding program and demand for continuation, even if this needs the community involvement.

Conclusion

The larviciding program in the city of Yaoundé did not negatively affected community members’ behaviour and practices concerning the use of treated nets. The study indicated the acceptance of larviciding program by the population. This positive environment could favour the implementation of future antilarval control activities in the city of Yaoundé.

House modifications for preventing malaria

BACKGROUND

Malaria remains an important public health problem. Research in 1900 suggested house modifications may reduce malaria transmission. A previous version of this review concluded that house screening may be effective in reducing malaria. This update includes data from five new studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of house modifications that aim to reduce exposure to mosquitoes on malaria disease and transmission.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (OVID); Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CAB) Abstracts (Web of Science); and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS) up to 25 May 2022. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry to identify ongoing trials up to 25 May 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials, including cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), cross-over studies, and stepped-wedge designs were eligible, as were quasi-experimental trials, including controlled before-and-after studies, controlled interrupted time series, and non-randomized cross-over studies. We sought studies investigating primary construction and house modifications to existing homes reporting epidemiological outcomes (malaria case incidence, malaria infection incidence or parasite prevalence). We extracted any entomological outcomes that were also reported in these studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used risk ratios (RR) to compare the effect of the intervention with the control for dichotomous data. For continuous data, we presented the mean difference; and for count and rate data, we used rate ratios. We presented all results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

One RCT and six cRCTs met our inclusion criteria, with an additional six ongoing RCTs. We did not identify any eligible non-randomized studies. All included trials were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa since 2009; two randomized by household and four at the block or village level. All trials assessed screening of windows, doors, eaves, ceilings, or any combination of these; this was either alone, or in combination with roof modification or eave tube installation (an insecticidal "lure and kill" device that reduces mosquito entry whilst maintaining some airflow). In one trial, the screening material was treated with 2% permethrin insecticide. In five trials, the researchers implemented the interventions. A community-based approach was adopted in the other trial. Overall, the implementation of house modifications probably reduced malaria parasite prevalence (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.82; 5 trials, 5183 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although an inconsistent effect was observed in a subpopulation of children in one study. House modifications reduced moderate to severe anaemia prevalence (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89; 3 trials, 3643 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was no consistent effect on clinical malaria incidence, with rate ratios ranging from 0.38 to 1.62 (3 trials, 3365 participants, 4126.6 person-years). House modifications may reduce indoor mosquito density (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.30; 4 trials, 9894 household-nights; low-certainty evidence), although two studies showed little effect on this parameter.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

House modifications - largely screening, sometimes combined with insecticide and lure and kill devices - were associated with a reduction in malaria parasite prevalence and a reduction in people with anaemia. Findings on malaria incidence were mixed. Modifications were also associated with lower indoor adult mosquito density, but this effect was not present in some studies.