Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the study population.
The results from Table 1 printed out the major socio-economics characteristics in the regions of study whereas the majority of the interviewed heads of household in the study areas were men at level of 67.96% in Gisagara District and 82.49% in Bugesera District. The higher representative heads of household were found in Bugesera District, as it was found, there were 32.04% women’s heads of household in that District. At least all interviewed heads of household were in category of youth; the majority among them had the years varying between 21 and 60. The higher number of interviewed persons in Gisagara District was in an average years of 41–60 and 21–40 years with the rate of 47.55% and 44.44% respectively while in Bugesera District, the higher number of interviewed heads of household was in category of 21–40 years with a rate of 67.8%. The results showing that the households’ respondents who had at least 20 years also were at low level with a rate of 0.78% and among them no body found in Bugesera District. While there were at least 0.78% in total head of household interviewed in Gisagara District, the same as for the heads of household with age greater than 80 years, there were nobody interviewed in Bugesera District while there were 1.03% of head of household interviewed in Gisagara district.
The result also showed that, the majority of interviewed head of households did not have any education level at least 48.06% and 46.89 in Gisagara and Bugesera Districts respectively attended either primary school only, whereas 44.96% and 40.11% attended at least primary school in Gisagara and Bugesera District respectively. The results showed a low proportion among the people who had the abilities to attend the higher school with the rate of 0.26% in Gisagara District, whereas they were 0.85% in Bugesera Districts. Only 34.47% and 34.62% of heads of household were married in Gisagara and Bugesera District respectively. The results showed that the majority were the heads of household who were never married with a rate of 40.43% and 29.81% in Gisagara and Bugesera District respectively.
The results showed that the majority of the heads of the household were in poor category in Gisagara District. Among all interviewed heads of Household in Gisagara District, 53.75% were poorest while 20.67% were poor. Contrary, in Bugesera District the majority of interviewed heads of household were in middle and richer category with a rate of 25.42% and 23.45% respectively.
The higher level of poverty found while analyzing this data may higher related with the fact that the majority of households especially those visited in Gisagara District didn’t have enough agriculture land size, owns their livestock’s nor having the ability to save some money on bank account. In Gisagara District, the results showed that the among all interviewed households 27.65% didn’t own any land and 72.35% had the shortage land varying between 0.1 up to 1ha, in the same district. Majority, 54.25% didn’t own the livestock and many of them 62.27% didn’t have the bank account. Comparatively to those interviewed households of Bugesera District, 31.92% did not own any proportion of land and among those who had the land, 38.98% had the shortage land varying between 0-1ha, 39.27% did not have any livestock while 45.48% among of them don’t have a bank account. Cooking food is usually the activity performed by women in rural areas as the same as in town. As it was found, the majority of households visited in Gisagara District cook their foods in the sleeping house 62.53% comparatively to those of Bugesera District whereas the majority 69.77% preparing the foods in the house separated with the main sleeping houses. The cooking place maybe the greatest factor for malaria infection among the household’s members of Bugesera District, as the major of the them 69.77% move from one house to another for the food cooking, and some of them 21.19% using outdoor for the food cooking.
Table 1
Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the study population.
|
|
Gisagara (N = 387)
|
Bugesera (N = 354)
|
Variables
|
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Sex
|
Male
|
263
|
67.96
|
292
|
82.49
|
|
Female
|
124
|
32.04
|
62
|
17.51
|
|
< 20
|
3
|
0.78
|
0
|
0
|
|
21–40
|
172
|
44.44
|
240
|
67.8
|
Age (in years)
|
41–60
|
184
|
47.55
|
98
|
27.68
|
|
61–80
|
24
|
6.2
|
16
|
4.52
|
|
> 80
|
4
|
1.03
|
0
|
0
|
|
No education, preschool
|
186
|
48.06
|
166
|
46.89
|
|
Primary
|
174
|
44.96
|
142
|
40.11
|
Education
|
Secondary
|
26
|
6.72
|
43
|
12.15
|
|
Higher
|
1
|
0.26
|
3
|
0.85
|
|
Never married
|
95
|
40.43
|
62
|
29.81
|
|
Married
|
81
|
34.47
|
72
|
34.62
|
Marital status
|
Living together
|
34
|
14.47
|
52
|
25
|
|
Widowed
|
9
|
3.83
|
10
|
4.81
|
|
Divorced
|
1
|
0.43
|
5
|
2.4
|
|
Not living together
|
15
|
6.38
|
7
|
3.37
|
|
Poorest
|
208
|
53.75
|
57
|
16.1
|
|
Poorer
|
80
|
20.67
|
59
|
16.67
|
Wealth index
|
Middle
|
37
|
9.56
|
90
|
25.42
|
|
Richer
|
35
|
9.04
|
83
|
23.45
|
|
Richest
|
27
|
6.98
|
65
|
18.36
|
Place of cooking
|
In the house
|
242
|
62.53
|
32
|
9.04
|
In a separate building
|
122
|
31.52
|
247
|
69.77
|
Outdoors
|
23
|
5.94
|
75
|
21.19
|
Household has separate room used as Kitchen
|
No
|
51
|
21.25
|
13
|
40.63
|
Yes
|
189
|
78.75
|
19
|
59.38
|
Owns land usable for Agriculture
|
No
|
107
|
27.65
|
113
|
31.92
|
Yes
|
280
|
72.35
|
241
|
68.08
|
|
0
|
134
|
38.73
|
138
|
38.98
|
Agriculture land size (in hectares)
|
1–5
|
45
|
13.01
|
45
|
12.71
|
|
5–10
|
32
|
9.25
|
39
|
11.02
|
|
Above 10
|
135
|
39.02
|
132
|
37.29
|
Owns livestock herds or farm animals
|
No
|
210
|
54.26
|
139
|
39.27
|
Yes
|
177
|
45.74
|
215
|
60.73
|
Having Bank Account
|
No
|
241
|
62.27
|
161
|
45.48
|
Yes
|
146
|
37.73
|
193
|
54.52
|
Prevalence of malaria in Bugesera and Gisagara Districts.
Table 2
Prevalence of malaria in Bugesera and Gisagara Districts.
|
Gisagara District
|
Bugesera District
|
Results of Malaria tests
|
Frequency
|
Percentages (%)
|
Frequency
|
Percentages (%)
|
Negatives
|
348
|
89.92
|
309
|
87.29
|
Positives
|
39
|
10.08
|
45
|
12.71
|
The results of the study from Table 2 show that in Gisagara District the level of malaria prevalence is low compared to the level of malaria prevalence in Bugesera District. The figures of malaria prevalence are as follow 10.08% and 12.71% in Gisagara and Bugesera Districts respectively.
Geographical and environmental status of Gisagara and Bugesera Districts.
In this study, it was found that, the majority of the households in Bugesera used the technological materials much more if compared with those of Gisagara District, 52.54% having and frequently listening to radio, 14.69% having and watching television while 74.58% using mobile phone, for Gisagara District, 48.84% having and frequently listening to radio, 3.88% having and frequently watching television with 38.24% who had and used mobile phone.
The results from this survey printed out that majority of interviewed households living in rural areas at level of 86.05% and 85.03% in Gisagara and Bugesera Districts respectively, and 13.95% and 14.97% who lived in urban, this may the reason malaria found much more in those areas of study. There were still a higher number of people who took long journey within the year of 2014–2015 in order to reach the hospital in those areas of study. A higher number 46.40% in Gisagara District went from home up to nearly District Hospital or Health Center for interval length of 200-500m while in Bugesera District a higher number 49,68% of interviewed households went for length above 500m in order to reach a hospital or health center. A considerable households number went few time in order to reach the nearly hospital or health center in Gisagara District if compared with those of Bugesera District, the results showed that 29.07% among the interviewed heads of household take them length with were less than 200m while for those of Bugesera District were 9.03% only.
The majority of the households in Bugesera District were located in low altitude, whereas all of them 100% living in different agro-ecological zone with altitude under 1500m, 55.65% at altitudes of 1301-1400m and 44.35% at altitudes of 1401-1500m. Contrary to the households of Gisagara District, majority of those lived on higher altitudes whereas 57.11% lived on altitudes of 1501–1600 m, 20.16% lived on altitudes greater than 1601m with only few households 22.74% who lived on altitudes below 1500 m. According to geographical location, these two districts, are located near the long rivers (Akanyaru and Akagera rivers) of country pass through them before reaching abroad and became Nil. These two Districts were covered with several marshlands and swamps that were the suitable areas for the development of mosquitos. This is maybe also the reason by which Gisagara and Bugesera were two Districts with higher number of positive results tests of Malaria in the country. According to the results in Table 3; 4.39% households located in region with the altitude less than 1400m in Gisagara District while only 6.98% households located in region of altitudes of 1701–1800 m.
Table 3
Geographical and environmental status of Gisagara and Bugesera Districts.
|
|
Gisagara (N = 387)
|
Bugesera (N = 354)
|
Variables
|
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Having a radio
|
No
|
198
|
51.16
|
168
|
47.46
|
Yes
|
189
|
48.84
|
186
|
52.54
|
Having a Television
|
No
|
372
|
96.12
|
302
|
85.31
|
Yes
|
15
|
3.88
|
52
|
14.69
|
Having a mobile
|
No
|
239
|
61.76
|
90
|
25.42
|
|
Yes
|
148
|
38.24
|
264
|
74.58
|
Having mosquito bed net
|
No
|
42
|
10.85
|
42
|
11.86
|
Yes
|
345
|
89.15
|
312
|
88.14
|
Type of Mosquito bed net used
|
Did not sleep under mosquito net
|
125
|
32.3
|
84
|
23.73
|
Only treated Mosquito net
|
262
|
67.7
|
270
|
76.27
|
Person sleeping under the treated net
|
No
|
125
|
32.3
|
84
|
23.73
|
Yes
|
262
|
67.7
|
270
|
76.27
|
Covered by health insurance
|
No
|
130
|
33.68
|
103
|
29.1
|
Yes
|
256
|
66.32
|
251
|
70.9
|
HH Residence
|
Urban
|
54
|
13.95
|
53
|
14.97
|
|
Rural
|
333
|
86.05
|
302
|
85.03
|
Distance from house (in meters)
|
> 200
|
109
|
29.07
|
28
|
9.03
|
200–500
|
174
|
46.4
|
128
|
41.29
|
< 500
|
92
|
24.53
|
154
|
49.68
|
|
1301–1400
|
17
|
4.39
|
197
|
55.65
|
|
1401–1500
|
71
|
18.35
|
157
|
44.35
|
Altitudes ( in meters)
|
1501–1600
|
221
|
57.11
|
0
|
0
|
|
1601–1700
|
51
|
13.18
|
0
|
0
|
|
1701–1800
|
27
|
6.98
|
0
|
0
|
Bivariate Analysis
Bivariate analysis of Malaria and socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the study population.
The results of the bivariate analysis of Malaria and socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the study population from Table 4 show that in Gisagara District, two variables including owns livestock herds or farm animals and having bank account were statistically significant with Malaria at a P-value of 0.02 and 0.04 respectively. For Bugesera District, none variable was statistically significant with malaria.
Table 4
Bivariate analysis of Malaria and socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the study population.
Results of Malaria tests in percentage
|
|
|
Gisagara (N = 387)
|
Bugesera (N = 354)
|
Variables
|
|
Positives
|
Negatives
|
P-Value
|
Positives
|
Negatives
|
P-Value
|
|
|
N = 39
|
N = 348
|
|
N = 45
|
N = 309
|
|
Sex
|
Male
|
64.10(25)
|
68.39(238)
|
0.586
|
88.89 (40)
|
81.55(252)
|
0.226
|
|
Female
|
35.90 (14)
|
31.61(110)
|
|
11.11 (5)
|
18.45 (57)
|
|
|
< 20
|
2.56 (1)
|
0.57 (2)
|
|
0.00 (0)
|
0.00 (0)
|
|
Age (in years)
|
21–40
|
28.21 (11)
|
46.26(161)
|
0.128
|
64.44 (29)
|
68.28(211)
|
0.073
|
|
41–60
|
58.97(23)
|
46.26 (161)
|
|
24.44 (11)
|
28.16 (87)
|
|
|
61–80
|
10.26(4)
|
5.75 (20)
|
|
11.11 (5)
|
3.56 (11)
|
|
|
> 80
|
0.00 (0)
|
1.15 (4)
|
|
0.00 (0)
|
0.00(0)
|
|
|
no education, preschool
|
56.41 (22)
|
47.13 (164)
|
|
62.22 (28)
|
44.66 (138)
|
|
Education
|
Primary
|
35.90(14)
|
45.98(160)
|
0.661
|
33.33 (15)
|
41.10 (127)
|
0.105
|
|
Secondary
|
7.69 (3)
|
6.61(23)
|
|
4.44(2)
|
13.27 (41)
|
|
|
Higher
|
0.00(0)
|
0.29(1)
|
|
0.00 (0)
|
0.97(3)
|
|
|
Never Married
|
72.22 (13)
|
37.79 (82)
|
|
47.06 (8)
|
28.27(54)
|
|
Marital Status
|
Married
|
5.56 (1)
|
36.87(80)
|
|
23.53 (4)
|
35.60 (68)
|
|
|
Living together
|
16.67 (3)
|
14.29 (31)
|
|
29.41(5)
|
24.61 (47)
|
|
|
Widowed
|
0.00 (0)
|
4.15 (9)
|
0.062
|
0.00 (0)
|
5.24(10)
|
0.466
|
|
Divorced
|
0.00 (0)
|
0.46 (1)
|
|
0.00 (0)
|
2.62 (5)
|
|
|
Not living together
|
5.56(1)
|
6.45 (14)
|
|
0.00 (0)
|
3.66 (7)
|
|
|
Poorest
|
74.36 (29)
|
51.44 (179)
|
|
28.89 (13)
|
14.24 (44)
|
|
Weath Index
|
Poorer
|
15.38(6)
|
21.26 (74)
|
|
15.56 (7)
|
16.83 (52)
|
|
|
Middle
|
0.00 (0)
|
10.63 (37)
|
0.058
|
26.67 (12)
|
25.24 (78)
|
0.112
|
|
Richer
|
5.13 (2)
|
9.48 (33)
|
|
17.78 (8)
|
24.27 (75)
|
|
|
Richest
|
5.13 (2)
|
7.18(25)
|
|
11.11 (5)
|
19.42 (60)
|
|
|
In the house
|
66.67 (26)
|
62.07 (216)
|
|
13.33 (6)
|
8.41 (26)
|
|
Cooking areas
|
In separate building
|
28.21 (11)
|
31.90 (111)
|
0.853
|
60.00 (27)
|
71.20 (220)
|
0.288
|
|
Outdoors
|
5.13 (2)
|
6.03 (21)
|
|
26.67 (12)
|
20.39 (63)
|
|
House has separate room used as Kitchen
|
No
|
19.23 (5)
|
21.50 (46)
|
0.79
|
33.33(2)
|
42.31 (11)
|
0.687
|
|
Yes
|
80.77(21)
|
78.50(168)
|
|
66.67(4)
|
57.69 (15)
|
|
Owns land used for agriculture
|
No
|
33.33 (13)
|
27.01 (94)
|
0.403
|
31.11 (14)
|
32.04 (99)
|
0.901
|
|
Yes
|
66.67 (26)
|
72.99 (254)
|
|
68.89 (31)
|
67.96(210)
|
|
Agriculture land Size(in hectares)
|
0
|
42.86 (15)
|
38.26 (119)
|
|
40.00(18)
|
40.00 (120)
|
|
|
5-Jan
|
5.71(2)
|
13.83 (43)
|
|
20.00(9)
|
11.65 (36)
|
|
|
10-May
|
2.86 (1)
|
9.87 (31)
|
0.222
|
22.22 (1)
|
12.30 (38)
|
0.122
|
|
Above 10
|
48.57(17)
|
37.94 (118)
|
|
37.78(17)
|
37.22(115)
|
|
Owns livestock Herds or farm animals
|
No
|
71.79(28)
|
52.30 (182)
|
0.02**
|
33.33(15)
|
40.13 (124)
|
0.383
|
|
Yes
|
28.215 (11)
|
47.705(166)
|
|
66.67(30)
|
59.87 (185)
|
|
Having Bank Account
|
No
|
76.92 (30)
|
60.63 (211)
|
0.047**
|
51.11 (23)
|
44.66 (139)
|
0.417
|
|
Yes
|
23.08 (9)
|
39.37 (137)
|
|
48.89(22)
|
55.34 (171)
|
|
Bivariate analysis of Malaria and geographical and environmental status of Gisagara and Bugesera Districts.
The results from Table 5 show that for Gisagara District variables such as having radio, having mobile phone, having mosquito bed net, type of mosquito bed net used, person sleeping under the treated net, covered by health insurance were statistically significant.
For Bugesera District, three variables were statistically significant. Those variables include; type of mosquito bed net used, person sleeping under the treated net and altitudes.
Table 5
Bivariate analysis of malaria and Geographical and environmental status of Gisagara and Bugesera Districts
Results of malaria tests in percentages
|
|
|
|
Gisagara (N = 387)
|
|
Bugesera (N = 354)
|
Variables
|
Positives (N = 39)
|
Negatives (N = 348)
|
P-Value
|
Positives (N = 45)
|
Negatives (N = 309
|
P-Value
|
Having a radio
|
No
|
71.79 (28)
|
48.85 (170)
|
0.007***
|
48.89 (22)
|
47.25 (146)
|
0.837
|
Yes
|
28.21 (11)
|
51.15 (178)
|
51.11 (23)
|
52.75 (163)
|
Having a Television
|
No
|
97.44 (38)
|
95.98 (334)
|
0.654
|
91.11 (41)
|
84.47 (261)
|
0.239
|
Yes
|
2.56 (1)
|
4.02 (14)
|
8.89 (4)
|
15.53 (48)
|
Having mobile Phone
|
No
|
76.92 (30)
|
60.06 (209)
|
0.04**
|
28.89 (13)
|
24.92 (77)
|
0.568
|
Yes
|
23.08 (9)
|
39.94 (139)
|
71.11 (32)
|
75.08 (232)
|
Having mosquito bed net
|
No
|
30.77 (12)
|
8.62 (30)
|
0.000***
|
20.00 (9)
|
10.68 (33)
|
0.071
|
Yes
|
69.23 (27)
|
91.38 (318)
|
80.00 (36)
|
89.32 (276)
|
Type of Mosquito bed net used
|
Did not sleep under mosquito net
|
56.41 (22)
|
29.60 (103)
|
0.001***
|
35.56 (16)
|
22.01 (68)
|
0.046**
|
Only treated
Mosquito net 43.59 (17)
|
70.40 (245)
|
64.44 (29)
|
77.99 (241)
|
Person sleeping under the treated net
|
No
|
56.41 (22)
|
29.60 (103)
|
0.001***
|
35.56 (16)
|
22.01 (68)
|
0.046**
|
Yes
|
43.59 (17)
|
70.40 (245)
|
64.44 (29)
|
77.99 (241)
|
Covered by health insurance
|
No
|
64.10 (25)
|
30.26 (105)
|
0.000***
|
37.78 (17)
|
27.83 (86)
|
0.17
|
Yes
|
39.50 (14)
|
69.74 (242)
|
62.22 (28)
|
72.17 (223)
|
HH Residence
|
Urban
|
20.51 (8)
|
13.22 (46)
|
0.213
|
13.33 (6)
|
15.21 (47)
|
0.742
|
Rural
|
79.49 (31)
|
86.78 (302)
|
86.67 (39)
|
84.79 (262)
|
Distance from House ( in meters)
|
> 200
|
18.42 (7)
|
30.27 (102)
|
2.27 (1)
|
10.15 (27)
|
200–500
|
47.37 (18)
|
46.29 (156)
|
0.195
|
54.55 (24)
|
39.10 (104)
|
0.074
|
|
< 500
|
34.21 (13)
|
23.44 (79)
|
43.18 (19)
|
50.75 (135)
|
Altitudes ( in meters)
|
1301–1400
|
7.69 (3)
|
4.02 (14)
|
75.56 (34)
|
52.75 (163)
|
|
1401–1500 20.51 (8)
|
18.10 (63)
|
24.44 (11)
|
47.25 (146)
|
|
1501 − 1500
|
66.67 (26)
|
56.03 (195)
|
0.147
|
0.00 (0)
|
0.00 (0)
|
0.004***
|
|
1501–1600
|
2.56 (1)
|
14.37 (50)
|
0.00 (0)
|
0.00 (0)
|
|
|
1601–1700
|
2.56 (1)
|
7.47 (26)
|
0.00 (0)
|
0.00 (0)
|
|
Multivariate Analysis of Malaria in Gisagara and Bugesera Districts.
The results of Table 6 from the reduced logistic regression model used the significant variables with malaria in both Gisagara and Bugesera Districts. For Gisagara District, the bivariate analysis of the factors like having radio, having mosquito bed net for sleep, having mobile phone, type of mosquito bed net, person sleeping under treated net, having health insurance, owns livestock herds or farm animals, having bank account were included in reduced model. In Bugesera District, variables such as type of mosquito bed net, person sleeping under the treated net and altitudes were considered for reduced regression model.
According to the multivariate analysis only not having mosquito bed nets for sleeping with OR = 0.264 CI = [0.118, 0.593], it has an association with malaria in Gisagara District. Therefore, in Gisagara District not having mosquito bed nets for sleeping is 0.264 times less likely of having malaria than those who have mosquito bed nets.
The results of multivariate analysis in Bugesera District show one variable with a significant level. The explanatory variable such low as altitude is 2.768 times more likely to have malaria than those of high altitude.
Table 6
Multivariate Analysis of Malaria in Gisagara and Bugesera Districts.
Gisagara District
|
Bugesera District
|
|
Results of Malaria tests
|
OR
|
CI at 95%
|
Pv
|
OR
|
CI at 95%
|
pv
|
Having a radio
|
1
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
No
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Having mosquito bed nets for sleeping
|
1
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
No
|
0.264
|
0.118–0.593
|
0.001***
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Having a mobile phone
|
1
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
No
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Owns livestock
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
0.630
|
0.277–1.431
|
0.27
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Having a bank account
|
1
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
Yes
|
0.697
|
0.293–1.656
|
0.414
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Using mosquito bed net last night
|
1
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
Both treated (itn) and Untreated nets
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
1
|
|
|
Person slept under even treated net
|
1
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
N0
|
1
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
Covered by health insurance
|
1
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
No
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Altitudes (1401–1500)
|
-
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
1301–1400
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
2.768
|
1.353–5.662
|
0.005***
|
1501–1600
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1601–1700
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1701–1800
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
The sign in table means: *** P-value < 0.01%, ** P-value < 0.05 and * P-value < 0.1%. Test differences for vegetable farmers characteristics through independents t-test and chi-square.