Variation in Anopheles distribution and predictors of malaria infection risk across regions of Madagascar
Background Deforestation and land use change is widespread in Madagascar, altering local ecosystems and creating opportunities for disease vectors, such as the Anopheles mosquito, to proliferate and more easily reach vulnerable, rural populations. Knowledge of risk factors associated with malaria infections is growing globally, but these associations remain understudied across Madagascar’s diverse ecosystems experiencing rapid environmental change. This study aims to uncover socioeconomic, demographic, and ecological risk factors for malaria infection across regions through analysis of a large, cross-sectional dataset.
Methods The objectives were to assess(1) the ecological correlates of malaria vector breeding through larval surveys, and (2) the socioeconomic, demographic, and ecological risk factors for malaria infection in four ecologically distinct regions of rural Madagascar. Risk factors were determined using multilevel models for the four regions included in the study.
Results The presence of aquatic agriculture (both within and surrounding communities) is the strongest predictive factor of habitats containing Anopheles larvae across all regions. Ecological and socioeconomic risk factors for malaria infection vary dramatically across study regions and range in their complexity.
Conclusions Risk factors for malaria transmission differ dramatically across regions of Madagascar. These results may help stratifying current malaria control efforts in Madagascar beyond the scope of existing interventions.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Posted 17 Sep, 2020
On 29 Sep, 2020
On 18 Sep, 2020
On 15 Sep, 2020
On 14 Sep, 2020
On 14 Sep, 2020
Invitations sent on 14 Aug, 2020
On 13 Aug, 2020
On 12 Aug, 2020
On 12 Aug, 2020
On 13 Jun, 2020
Received 12 Jun, 2020
Received 07 Jun, 2020
On 21 May, 2020
On 30 Apr, 2020
Invitations sent on 29 Apr, 2020
On 23 Apr, 2020
On 22 Apr, 2020
On 22 Apr, 2020
On 21 Apr, 2020
Variation in Anopheles distribution and predictors of malaria infection risk across regions of Madagascar
Posted 17 Sep, 2020
On 29 Sep, 2020
On 18 Sep, 2020
On 15 Sep, 2020
On 14 Sep, 2020
On 14 Sep, 2020
Invitations sent on 14 Aug, 2020
On 13 Aug, 2020
On 12 Aug, 2020
On 12 Aug, 2020
On 13 Jun, 2020
Received 12 Jun, 2020
Received 07 Jun, 2020
On 21 May, 2020
On 30 Apr, 2020
Invitations sent on 29 Apr, 2020
On 23 Apr, 2020
On 22 Apr, 2020
On 22 Apr, 2020
On 21 Apr, 2020
Background Deforestation and land use change is widespread in Madagascar, altering local ecosystems and creating opportunities for disease vectors, such as the Anopheles mosquito, to proliferate and more easily reach vulnerable, rural populations. Knowledge of risk factors associated with malaria infections is growing globally, but these associations remain understudied across Madagascar’s diverse ecosystems experiencing rapid environmental change. This study aims to uncover socioeconomic, demographic, and ecological risk factors for malaria infection across regions through analysis of a large, cross-sectional dataset.
Methods The objectives were to assess(1) the ecological correlates of malaria vector breeding through larval surveys, and (2) the socioeconomic, demographic, and ecological risk factors for malaria infection in four ecologically distinct regions of rural Madagascar. Risk factors were determined using multilevel models for the four regions included in the study.
Results The presence of aquatic agriculture (both within and surrounding communities) is the strongest predictive factor of habitats containing Anopheles larvae across all regions. Ecological and socioeconomic risk factors for malaria infection vary dramatically across study regions and range in their complexity.
Conclusions Risk factors for malaria transmission differ dramatically across regions of Madagascar. These results may help stratifying current malaria control efforts in Madagascar beyond the scope of existing interventions.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3