Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40413449›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health geographics2025

Assessing the impact of building footprint dataset choice for health programme planning: a case study of indoor residual spraying (IRS) in Zambia.

Heather R Chamberlain, Derek Pollard, Anna Winters, Silvia Renn, Olena Borkovska, Chisenga Abel Musuka, Garikai Membele, Attila N Lazar, Andrew J Tatem

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health geographics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Advances in small area population estimation in the absence of national census data.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    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

9 authors.

Heather R ChamberlainWorldPop, School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK. h.chamberlain@soton.ac.uk.
Derek PollardAkros Research, 45 A Roan Road, Kabulonga, Lusaka, Zambia.
Anna WintersAkros Inc., 4302 Timberlane, Missoula, MT, 59802, USA.
Silvia RennGRID3 Inc., 211 East 43Rd Street, 7 Th Floor #219, New York, NY, 10017, USA.
Olena BorkovskaGRID3 Inc., 211 East 43Rd Street, 7 Th Floor #219, New York, NY, 10017, USA.
Chisenga Abel MusukaGRID3 Inc., 211 East 43Rd Street, 7 Th Floor #219, New York, NY, 10017, USA.
Garikai MembeleGRID3 Inc., 211 East 43Rd Street, 7 Th Floor #219, New York, NY, 10017, USA.
Attila N LazarWorldPop, School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Andrew J TatemWorldPop, School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation INV-045694Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office GB-GOV-1-400025-405
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing availability globally of building footprint datasets has brought new opportunities to support a geographic approach to health programme planning. This is particularly acute in settings with high disease burdens but limited geospatial data available to support targeted planning. The comparability of building footprint datasets has recently started to be explored, but the impact of utilising a particular dataset in analyses to support decision making for health programme planning has not been studied. In this study, we quantify the impact of utilising four different building footprint datasets in analyses to support health programme planning, with an example of malaria vector control initiatives in Zambia.

methodsUsing the example of planning indoor residual spraying (IRS) campaigns in Zambia, we identify priority locations for deployment of this intervention based on criteria related to the area, proximity and counts of building footprints per settlement. We apply the same criteria to four different building footprint datasets and quantify the count and geographic variability in the priority settlements that are identified.

resultsWe show that nationally the count of potential priority settlements for IRS varies by over 230% with different building footprint datasets, considering a minimum threshold of 25 sprayable buildings per settlement. Differences are most pronounced for rural settlements, indicating that the choice of dataset may bias the selection to include or exclude settlements, and consequently population groups, in some areas.

conclusionsThe results of this study show that the choice of building footprint dataset can have a considerable impact on the potential settlements identified for IRS, in terms of (i) their location and count, and (ii) the count of building footprints within priority settlements. The choice of dataset potentially has substantial implications for campaign planning, implementation and coverage assessment. Given the magnitude of the differences observed, further work should more broadly assess the sensitivity of health programme planning metrics to different building footprint datasets, and across a range of geographic contexts and health campaign types.

Indexed as

Health PlanningInsecticidesMalariaMosquito ControlHumansZambiaInsecticidesBuilding footprintsGeospatialMalariaMicroplanningSatellite imagery

Identifiers

PMID40413449
PMCPMC12103797

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.