Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36374859›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Human behavior determinants of exposure to Anopheles vectors of malaria in Sumba, Indonesia.

Ismail E Rozi, Lepa Syahrani, Dendi H Permana, Puji B S Asih, Anggi P N Hidayati, Sully Kosasih, Farahana K Dewayanti, Rifqi Risandi, Siti Zubaidah, Michael J Bangs and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Serological evidence of continued exposure toFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

19 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Ismail E RoziEijkman Research Center for Molecular Biology, National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Lepa SyahraniEijkman Research Center for Molecular Biology, National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Dendi H PermanaEijkman Research Center for Molecular Biology, National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Puji B S AsihEijkman Research Center for Molecular Biology, National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Anggi P N HidayatiEijkman Research Center for Molecular Biology, National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Sully KosasihEijkman Research Center for Molecular Biology, National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0002-0697-256X
Farahana K DewayantiEijkman Research Center for Molecular Biology, National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0003-0956-0859
Rifqi RisandiEijkman Research Center for Molecular Biology, National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Siti ZubaidahEijkman Research Center for Molecular Biology, National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Michael J BangsPublic Health and Malaria Control, PT Freeport Indonesia, International SOS, Kuala Kencana, Papua, Indonesia.
Claus BøghThe Sumba Foundation, Public Health and Malaria Control, Bali, Indonesia.
John P GriecoDepartment of Biological Sciences, Eck Institute for Global Health, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, United States of America.
Juan E BausDepartment of Biological Sciences, Eck Institute for Global Health, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5032-085X
Evercita EugenioSandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States of America.
April MonroeJohns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Fang LiuApplied and Computational Mathematics and Statistics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, United States of America.
Nicole L AcheeDepartment of Biological Sciences, Eck Institute for Global Health, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, United States of America.
Din SyafruddinEijkman Research Center for Molecular Biology, National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0001-7141-2545
Neil F LoboDepartment of Biological Sciences, Eck Institute for Global Health, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, United States of America.
Eijkman Institute for Molecular Biology · IDUniversity of Notre Dame · USJohns Hopkins University · USKasetsart University · THSandia National Laboratories · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Malaria vector control interventions in Sumba, Indonesia, have not been able to eliminate malaria. Human drivers of exposure to Anopheles bites were investigated as part of a larger clinical trial evaluating the impact of a spatial repellent product on malaria incidence. Human behavioral observations (HBOs) evaluating temporal and spatial presence, sleeping behaviors, and insecticide treated net (ITN) use, were collected parallel to entomological collections-indoor and outdoor human landing catches (HLCs), and house hold surveys. Data demonstrates that mosquito access to humans, enabled by structurally open houses, is evident by the similar entomological landing rates both inside and outside households. The presence of animals inside houses was associated with increased mosquito entry-however, the number of humans present inside houses was not related to increased mosquito landing. Analyzing mosquito landing rates with human behavior data enables the spatial and temporal estimation of exposure to Anopheles bites, accounting for intervention (ITN) presence and usage. Human behavior adjusted exposure to Anopheles bites was found to be highest in the early in the evening, but continued at lower levels throughout the night. Over the night, most exposure (53%) occurred when people were indoors and not under the protection of nets (asleep or awake) followed by exposure outside (44%). Characterized gaps in protection are outdoor exposure as well as exposure indoors-when awake, and when asleep and not using ITNs. Interestingly, in the primary trial, even though there was not a significant impact of the spatial repellent on vector biting rates by themselves (16%), when factoring in human behavior, there was approximately 28% less exposure in the intervention arm than in the placebo arm. The treated arm had less human behavior adjusted bites in all spaces evaluated though there was proportionally higher exposure indoors. This analysis points to the importance of using HBOs both towards understanding gaps in protection as well as how interventions are evaluated. To mitigate ongoing transmission, understanding context specific spatial and temporal exposure based on the interactions of vectors, humans and interventions would be vital for a directed evidence-based control or elimination strategy.

Indexed as

AnophelesInsect Bites and StingsInsecticidesInsect RepellentsMalariaAnimalsFeeding BehaviorHumansIndonesiaMosquito ControlMosquito VectorsInsecticidesInsect Repellents

Identifiers

PMID36374859
PMCPMC9662732
OpenAlexW4308993589

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.