Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29029614›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2017

Field assessment of a novel spatial repellent for malaria control: a feasibility and acceptability study in Mondulkiri, Cambodia.

Marco Liverani, Jacques Derek Charlwood, Harriet Lawford, Shunmay Yeung

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Efficacy of a spatial repellent for control ofProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marco LiveraniDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Marco.Liverani@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0829-291X
Jacques Derek CharlwoodLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Harriet LawfordDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Shunmay YeungDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge-scale use of insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying have contributed to a significant decrease in malaria transmission worldwide. Further reduction and progress towards elimination, however, require complementary control measures which can address the remaining gaps in protection from mosquito bites. Following the development of novel pyrethroids with high knockdown effects on malaria vectors, programmatic use of spatial repellents has been suggested as one potential strategy to fill the gaps. This report explores social and contextual factors that may influence the relevance, uptake and sustainable use of a spatial repellent in two remote villages in Mondulkiri province, Cambodia, with endemic malaria transmission. The repellent consisted of polyethylene emanators, held in an open plastic frame and impregnated with 10% metofluthrin.

resultsIn a baseline survey, 90.9% of households in Ou Chra (n = 30/33) and 96.6% in Pu Cha (n = 57/59) were interviewed. Behavioural data were collected for all household occupants (n = 448). In both villages, there were times and places in which people remained exposed to mosquito bites. Prior to the installation of the repellent, 50.6 and 59.5% of respondents noted that bites occurred "very often" inside the house and in the outdoor area surrounding the house, respectively. Indoor biting was reported to occur more frequently in the evening, followed by at night, while outdoor biting occurred more frequently in the early morning. In a follow-up survey, spatial repellents were well received in both villages, although 63.2% of respondents would not replace bed nets with repellents. Most participants (96.6%) were willing to use the product again; the mean willingness to pay was US$ 0.3 per unit. A preference for local procurement methods emerged.

conclusionWidespread use of spatial repellents would not fill all protective gaps, but, if their entomological efficacy can be ascertained, outdoor application has the potential to enhance vector control strategies in Cambodia. Successful implementation would require subsidisation and integration with the existing national malaria control strategy. It is hoped that this study, while contributing to a better understanding of the social contexts of residual malaria transmission, will generate further interest in the evaluation of spatial repellents for malaria control.

Indexed as

CyclopropanesFamily CharacteristicsFluorobenzenesInsect RepellentsMosquito ControlMosquito VectorsCambodiaFeasibility StudiesHumansMalariaMaleSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and Questionnaires(2,3,5,6-tetrafluoro-4-methoxymethylphenyl)methyl-2,2-dimethyl-3-(1-propenyl)cyclopropanecarboxylateCyclopropanesFluorobenzenesInsect RepellentsCambodiaDisease awarenessMalariaMalaria protective measuresMetofluthrinResidual malaria transmissionSocial and economic aspects of malaria controlSpatial repellent

Identifiers

PMID29029614
PMCPMC5640900
OpenAlexW2763296711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.