Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38267927›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Community perceptions, acceptability, and the durability of house screening interventions against exposure to malaria vectors in Nyimba district, Zambia.

Kochelani Saili, Christiaan de Jager, Freddie Masaninga, Brian Chisanga, Andy Sinyolo, Japhet Chiwaula, Jacob Chirwa, Busiku Hamainza, Emmanuel Chanda, Nathan N Bakyaita and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Integrated vector management for malaria control: a review of approaches and effectiveness.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2025
    Review
  2. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Kochelani SailiInternational Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe), Nairobi, P.O. Box 30772-00100, Kenya. ksaili@icipe.org.
Christiaan de JagerSchool of Health Systems & Public Health, University of Pretoria Institute for Sustainable Malaria Control, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Freddie MasaningaWorld Health Organization, Lusaka, Zambia.
Brian ChisangaInternational Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe), Nairobi, P.O. Box 30772-00100, Kenya.
Andy SinyoloNational Malaria Elimination Centre, Lusaka, Zambia.
Japhet ChiwaulaNational Malaria Elimination Centre, Lusaka, Zambia.
Jacob ChirwaNational Malaria Elimination Centre, Lusaka, Zambia.
Busiku HamainzaNational Malaria Elimination Centre, Lusaka, Zambia.
Emmanuel ChandaWorld Health Organization, Regional Office, Brazzaville, Congo.
Nathan N BakyaitaWorld Health Organization, Lusaka, Zambia.
Clifford Maina MuteroInternational Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe), Nairobi, P.O. Box 30772-00100, Kenya.
National HIV/AIDS/STI/TB Council · ZMInternational Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology · KEWorld Health Organization - Zambia · ZMUniversity of Pretoria · ZAWorld Health Organization Regional Office for Africa · CG

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHouse screening remains conspicuously absent in national malaria programs despite its recognition by the World Health Organization as a supplementary malaria vector-control intervention. This may be attributed, in part, to the knowledge gap in screen durability or longevity in local climatic conditions and community acceptance under specific cultural practices and socio-economic contexts. The objectives of this study were to assess the durability of window and door wire mesh screens a year after full house screening and to assess the acceptability of the house screening intervention to the participants involved.

methodsThis study was conducted in Nyimba district, Zambia and used both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and analysis. Both direct observation and questionnaires were employed to assess the durability of the screens and the main reasons for damage. Findings on damage were summarized as percentages. Focus group discussions were used to assess people's knowledge, perceptions, and acceptability of the closing eaves and house screening intervention. Deductive coding and inductive coding were used to analyse the qualitative data.

resultsA total of 321 out of 400 (80.3%) household owners of screened houses were interviewed. Many window screens (90.3%) were intact. In sharp contrast, most door screens were torn (n = 150; 46.7%) or entirely removed (n = 55; 17.1%). Most doors (n = 114; 76%) had their wire mesh damaged or removed on the bottom half. Goats (25.4%), rust (17.6%) and children (17.1%) were cited most as the cause of damage to door screens. The focus group discussion elicited positive experiences from the participants following the closing of eaves and screening of their windows and doors, ranging from sleeping peacefully due to reduced mosquito biting and/or nuisance and having fewer insects in the house. Participants linked house screening to reduced malaria in their households and community.

conclusionThis study demonstrated that in rural south-east Zambia, closing eaves and screening windows and doors was widely accepted. Participants perceived that house screening reduced human-vector contact, reduced the malaria burden and nuisance biting from other potentially disease carrying insects. However, screened doors are prone to damage, mainly by children, domestic animals, rust, and termites.

Indexed as

AnophelesEczemaMalariaAnimalsChildData AccuracyHumansMosquito VectorsZambiaAcceptabilityCommunity perceptionsDurabilityHouse screeningMalariaMosquitoesZambia

Identifiers

PMID38267927
PMCPMC10809574
OpenAlexW4391160415

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.