ArticlePloS one2021
Results from a malaria indicator survey highlight the importance of routine data capture in high-risk forest and farm transmission sites in Vietnam to tailor location-specific malaria elimination interventions.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drivers of delay in reported malaria care-seeking in Myanmar and Thailand.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Malaria care-seeking among febrile patients in Myanmar and Thailand: an accelerated failure time analysis.Research square · 2025Article
- 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In-line with the World Health Organization's (WHO) Global Technical Strategy for Malaria (2016-2030), Vietnam is striving to eliminate malaria by 2030. Targeting appropriate interventions in high-risk populations such as forest and forest-fringe communities is a critical component of malaria elimination efforts in Vietnam. In 2016, a household-level malaria indicator survey was conducted in Phu Yen Province, Vietnam with the aim of assessing the knowledge, behaviors and associated risks of malaria infection among priority mobile and migrant populations (MMPs) working and sleeping in forests and on farms. A total of 4211 people were included in the survey, comprised of 1074 heads of households and 3137 associated household members. Of the 1074 head-of-household respondents, 472 slept in a forest, 92 slept on a farm, 132 slept in both forests and farms, and 378 slept at their villages within the last 12 months. Age, literacy, and occupation were significantly different among those who slept in a forest versus on a farm. Of 301 respondents who answered questions about malaria risk factors at sleeping sites, 35% were somewhat aware of malaria prevention practices, but only 4% could recall at least four malaria prevention messages. Among the same group of 301 respondents, only 29% used nets and only 11% used treated nets. Ownership and use of nets among forest-goers was significantly lower than those who slept on a farm or in their village. Huts without walls were significantly prominent forest sleeping site locations (POR = 10.3; 95% CI 4.67-22.7). All respondents who slept in a forest requested standby malaria drugs and one-third of them self-treated without blood testing. Results from this study highlight the importance of capturing relevant location-specific data among priority populations such as remote forest and farm going mobile and migrant populations in Vietnam. Data regarding behavioral practices, knowledge, preventative measures, and intervention coverage at remote-area transmission sites must be routinely captured to effectively monitor progress and refine targeted intervention strategies accordingly.
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.