ArticleBMJ global health2026
Spatial exploration of the impact of cattle on risk of malarial infection using data from a cluster randomised trial.
Article in BMJ global health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn the context of stalled progress in reducing malaria burden and ongoing efforts to develop novel vector control methods, there is ongoing debate about the impact of livestock on malaria transmission. Zooprophylaxis refers to the use of livestock as an alternate source of blood that diverts mosquito vectors away from humans, potentially reducing malaria transmission. However, conflicting evidence highlights the concept of zoopotentiation, where livestock may instead increase vector populations and enhance malaria transmission. Prior studies that explore these concepts have examined livestock as a household asset, which does not account for the geospatial effect of animals owned by neighbours around the home.
methodsWe implemented a novel spatial approach to explore the impact of cattle on the risk of malarial infection in coastal Kenya. Using data with high granularity from a recent randomised controlled trial, we measured the presence of animals at increasing concentric areas around the household. We fit binomial regression models with generalised estimating equations to explore how cattle density and cattle-to-human-ratio measures were related to malaria prevalence in children 5-15 years old, accounting for relevant environmental and socio-economic variables.
resultsOur findings show that cattle density measured at 400, 500, and 600 m around the household (ORs: 1.63, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.21; 1.84, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.80 and 2.04, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.67, respectively) and cattle-to-human ratio at 500 and 600 m (ORs: 2.73, 95% CI 1.45 to 5.41 and 2.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 4.86, respectively) are significantly related to higher odds of testing positive for malaria. We did not find a significant association at closer distances (<400 m) or when cattle were evaluated only as a household asset.
conclusionTo better understand the impact of livestock on malaria transmission and potentially develop vector control strategies that account for these impacts, future research should consider animals as an environmental exposure and not only as a household asset.
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.