Achieving high coverage of larval-stage mosquito surveillance: challenges for a community-based mosquito control programme in urban Dar es Salaam, TanzaniaReportar como inadecuado




Achieving high coverage of larval-stage mosquito surveillance: challenges for a community-based mosquito control programme in urban Dar es Salaam, Tanzania - Descarga este documento en PDF. Documentación en PDF para descargar gratis. Disponible también para leer online.

Malaria Journal

, 8:311

First Online: 30 December 2009Received: 17 September 2009Accepted: 30 December 2009

Abstract

BackgroundPreventing malaria by controlling mosquitoes in their larval stages requires regular sensitive monitoring of vector populations and intervention coverage. The study assessed the effectiveness of operational, community-based larval habitat surveillance systems within the Urban Malaria Control Programme UMCP in urban Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

MethodsCross-sectional surveys were carried out to assess the ability of community-owned resource persons CORPs to detect mosquito breeding sites and larvae in areas with and without larviciding. Potential environmental and programmatic determinants of habitat detection coverage and detection sensitivity of mosquito larvae were recorded during guided walks with 64 different CORPs to assess the accuracy of data each had collected the previous day.

ResultsCORPs reported the presence of 66.2% of all aquatic habitats 1,963-2,965, but only detected Anopheles larvae in 12.6% 29-230 of habitats that contained them. Detection sensitivity was particularly low for late-stage Anopheles 2.7%, 3-111, the most direct programmatic indicator of malaria vector productivity. Whether a CORP found a wet habitat or not was associated with his-her unfamiliarity with the area Odds Ratio OR 95% confidence interval CI = 0.16 0.130, 0.203, P < 0.001, the habitat type P < 0.001 or a fence around the compound OR 95%CI = 0.50 0.386, 0.646, P < 0.001. The majority of mosquito larvae Anophelines 57.8% 133-230 and Culicines 55.9% 461-825 were not reported because their habitats were not found. The only factor affecting detection of Anopheline larvae in habitats that were reported by CORPs was larviciding, which reduced sensitivity OR 95%CI = 0.37 0.142, 0.965, P = 0.042.

ConclusionsAccessibility of habitats in urban settings presents a major challenge because the majority of compounds are fenced for security reasons. Furthermore, CORPs under-reported larvae especially where larvicides were applied. This UMCP system for larval surveillance in cities must be urgently revised to improve access to enclosed compounds and the sensitivity with which habitats are searched for larvae.

Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article doi:10.1186-1475-2875-8-311 contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Download fulltext PDF



Autor: Prosper P Chaki - Nicodem J Govella - Bryson Shoo - Abdullah Hemed - Marcel Tanner - Ulrike Fillinger - Gerry F Killeen

Fuente: https://link.springer.com/







Documentos relacionados