ArticleMalaria journal2020
'We spray and walk away': wall modifications decrease the impact of indoor residual spray campaigns through reductions in post-spray coverage.
Article in Malaria journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability of Integrated Vector Management ofTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2026Article
- Investigating the impact of human behavioural factors on the effectiveness of malaria interventions in malaria-endemic regions: A systematic review.Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2026Review
- Entomological impact of three years of clothianidin-based indoor residual spraying in two high malaria endemic districts in Côte d'Ivoire.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- The epidemiology of malaria in four districts in southern Mozambique receiving indoor residual spray as part of a cross-border initiative.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Understanding psychosocial determinants of malaria behaviours in low-transmission settings: a scoping review.Malaria journal · 2024Article
- Impact of four years of annually repeated indoor residual spraying (IRS) with Actellic 300CS on routinely reported malaria cases in an agricultural setting in Malawi.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Genome-wide association studies reveal novel loci associated with pyrethroid and organophosphate resistance in Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles coluzzii.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Implementation and acceptance of government-sponsored malaria control interventions in Meghalaya, India.Malaria journal · 2022Article
- Real-time, spatial decision support to optimize malaria vector control: The case of indoor residual spraying on Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea.PLOS digital health · 2022Article
- Household modifications after the indoor residual spraying (IRS) campaign in Mozambique reduce the actual spray coverage and efficacy.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Acceptability and associated factors of indoor residual spraying for malaria control by households in Luangwa district of Zambia: A multilevel analysis.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Insecticide-treated eave ribbons for malaria vector control in low-income communities.Malaria journal · 2021Review
- Unlocking the human factor to increase effectiveness and sustainability of malaria vector control.Malaria journal · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Malaria prevalence has significantly reduced since 2000, largely due to the scale-up of vector control interventions, mainly indoor residual spraying (IRS) and long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs). Given their success, these tools remain the frontline interventions in the fight against malaria. Their effectiveness relies on three key ingredients: the intervention, the mosquito vector and the end-user. Regarding the intervention, factors such as the insecticide active ingredient(s) used and the durability and/or bio-efficacy of the tool over time are critical. For the vectors, these factors include biting and resting behaviours and the susceptibility to insecticides. Finally, the end-users need to accept and properly use the intervention. Whilst human attitude and behaviour towards LLINs are well-documented both during and after distribution, only initial coverage is monitored for IRS and in a few geographic settings the residual efficacy of the used product. Here, the historical evidence on end-users modifying their wall surfaces post-spraying is presented, a behaviour that has the potential to reduce actual IRS coverage, effectiveness and impact, as fewer people are truly protected. Therefore, clear guidelines on how to monitor IRS acceptability and/or coverage, both before, during and after spraying, are urgently needed as part of the Monitoring and Evaluation of malaria programmes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.