ArticleParasites & vectors2024
Malaria epidemics associated with low net use in preadolescent and young adult population in Dielmo (Senegal), a malaria pre-elimination area.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A new assay for molecular identification of Anopheles squamosus (Diptera: Culicidae) using internal transcribed spacer 2.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- A Comprehensive Review: Biology ofInsects · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe epidemic rebounds observed in 2010 and 2013 in Dielmo, a Senegalese village, during a decade (2008-2019) of universal coverage using a long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) strategy could have contributed to the resurgence of malaria. Thus, this study was undertaken to understand the implications of net ownership and use on malaria rebound events.
methodsA longitudinal study was carried out in Dielmo with 11 years of LLIN implementation from July 2008 to June 2019 with successive net renewals in 2011, 2014, 2016 and 2019. Quarterly cross-sectional surveys were performed to assess LLIN ownership and use by different age groups in the population. In addition, malaria incidence and transmission were assessed during the study period.
resultsOwnership of LLINs decreased significantly from 88% in the 1st year of net implementation to 70% during the first malaria upsurge and 72% during the second upsurge while net use decreased significantly from 66% during the 1st year to 58% during the first malaria upsurge and 53% during the second upsurge. Among young adults aged 15-29 years, net use decreased significantly from the 2nd year (51%) of net use to reach 43% during the first malaria upsurge and only 32% use during the second malaria upsurge. During the second malaria upsurge, net use was significantly lower among older children aged 10-14 years old than during the 1st year of net use (p < 0.001). During the first and the second malaria upsurges, the malaria incidence was significantly higher among children aged 10-14 years old (0.4 attacks per person-year) and young adults aged 15-29 years old (0.3 and 0.4 attacks per person, respectively) than during that the 1st year of net implementation (only 0.02 attacks per person-year for 10-14 year olds and 0.04 for 15-29 year olds; p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe first malaria upsurge occurred following a progressive decrease in net use after the 2nd year of their implementation with an important increase in malaria incidence among older children while the second malaria upsurge was significantly associated with the decrease of net use among older children and young adults. The regular use of nets in all age groups prevented the occurrence of a third malaria upsurge in Dielmo.
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.