Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39696481›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2024

Risk of Aedes-borne diseases in and around the Tanzanian seaport of Tanga despite community members being more concerned about malaria.

Amri S Abas, Alfred J Simfukwe, John P Masalu, Najat F Kahamba, Ismail H Nambunga, Dickson S Msaky, Alex J Limwagu, Abdallah R Kipekepeke, Carsten Wergin, Rukiyah M Njalambaha and 8 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

18 authors.

Amri S AbasSchool of Life Sciences and Bioengineering, The Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, P.O.BOX 447, Arusha, Tanzania. aabas@ihi.or.tz.
Alfred J SimfukweEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, P.O.BOX 53, Ifakara, Tanzania.
John P MasaluEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, P.O.BOX 53, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Najat F KahambaEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, P.O.BOX 53, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Ismail H NambungaEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, P.O.BOX 53, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Dickson S MsakyEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, P.O.BOX 53, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Alex J LimwaguEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, P.O.BOX 53, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Abdallah R KipekepekeEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, P.O.BOX 53, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Carsten WerginHeidelberg Centre for Transcultural Studies, Heidelberg University, Voßstraße 2, 69115, Heidelberg, Germany.
Rukiyah M NjalambahaEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, P.O.BOX 53, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Elison E KemibalaMuheza College of Health and Allied Sciences, P.O. BOX136, Muheza, Tanzania.
Amour SelemanPort Health Services Unit, Ministry of Health, Dodoma, United Republic of Tanzania.
Yeromin P MlachaEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, P.O.BOX 53, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Marceline FindaEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, P.O.BOX 53, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Uli BeiselDepartment of Geography, Department of Geography, Free University Berlin, Malteserstr. 74-100, 12249, Berlin, Germany.
Esther G Kimaro *School of Life Sciences and Bioengineering, The Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, P.O.BOX 447, Arusha, Tanzania.
Halfan S Ngowo *School of Life Sciences and Bioengineering, The Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, P.O.BOX 447, Arusha, Tanzania.
Fredros O Okumu *School of Life Sciences and Bioengineering, The Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, P.O.BOX 447, Arusha, Tanzania. fredros@ihi.or.tz.

Funding

Volkswagen Foundation 9B366
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreased global trade, while beneficial economically, can also increase the spread of vector-borne diseases, particularly those transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes spreading via trade routes. Given the heightened trade-induced activity at ports of entry, it is particularly crucial to assess the risk of mosquito-borne diseases in these settings. This study compared the risks of Aedes-borne disease in and around the eastern Tanzanian seaport of Tanga.

methodsA 200 m × 200 m grid-based system was used to sample mosquitoes within the port area, and in surrounding areas at 2 km, 2.5 km, and 5 km away, between June and December 2023. We characterized mosquito breeding habitats, collected mosquito larvae using standard dippers and tested susceptibility of raised adult Aedes aegypti populations to different insecticides. Adult mosquitoes were collected using BG sentinel traps (daytime) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) light traps (night-time). Additionally, more than 200 port users and neighboring residents were surveyed to assess their experiences with and perceptions of mosquito biting and disease risks.

resultsThere were 2931 breeding sites, with (60.8%, n = 1782) positive for Aedes larvae. The percentage of water-holding containers infested with Aedes immatures, i.e., the container index (CI), was highest in the port area (66.2%), and lowest 5 km away (44.6%). The port area also had a greater proportion of temporary breeding sites (64.9%) than did the surrounding areas. The adult mosquito surveys revealed 20,449 mosquito species including: Culex quinquefasciatus (56.2%), Mansonia uniformis (38.6%), Ae. aegypti (5.1%), Anopheles gambiae (0.1%), and Anopheles funestus. Ae. aegypti were more abundant in the port area than in the surrounding areas (P < 0.001), whereas Culex sp., and Mansonia sp., were significantly outside (P < 0.001). Adult Anopheles sp., were found only in the port area, but Anopheles larvae were found both within and outside the port areas. Tests on Ae. aegypti sp., revealed susceptibility to bendiocarb and DDT, and resistance to permethrin. Awareness of mosquito-borne diseases among respondents was high for malaria (64.8%), but low for dengue (26.3%) and Chikungunya (1.7%). Most respondents reported being bothered by mosquitoes mostly at night (53.4%) or in the evening (40.7%). In addition to insecticidal bednets, which are used primarily against malaria, preventive measures for Aedes-borne diseases are limited.

conclusionsThis study identified significant potential risk of Aedes species, specifically Ae. aegypti sp., and associated diseases, but low perception of risk and inadequate personal protection measures in the study area. This low perception of risk highlights the need to improve public knowledge of the transmission and control of Aedes-borne diseases.

Indexed as

AedesMalariaMosquito VectorsAnimalsEcosystemFemaleHumansInsecticidesLarvaMaleMosquito-Borne DiseasesMosquito ControlTanzaniaVector Borne DiseasesInsecticidesAedes aegyptiHabitat characterizationInsecticide susceptibilityMalariaMosquito-borneTanga portTanzania

Identifiers

PMID39696481
PMCPMC11657424

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.