| Title |
Disruptive technology for vector control: the Innovative Vector Control Consortium and the US Military join forces to explore transformative insecticide application technology for mosquito control programmes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Malaria Journal, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12936-015-0907-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jennifer Knapp, Michael Macdonald, David Malone, Nicholas Hamon, Jason H. Richardson |
| Abstract |
Malaria vector control technology has remained largely static for decades and there is a pressing need for innovative control tools and methodology to radically improve the quality and efficiency of current vector control practices. This report summarizes a workshop jointly organized by the Innovative Vector Control Consortium (IVCC) and the Armed Forces Pest Management Board (AFPMB) focused on public health pesticide application technology. Three main topics were discussed: the limitations with current tools and techniques used for indoor residual spraying (IRS), technology innovation to improve efficacy of IRS programmes, and truly disruptive application technology beyond IRS. The group identified several opportunities to improve application technology to include: insuring all IRS programmes are using constant flow valves and erosion resistant tips; introducing compression sprayer improvements that help minimize pesticide waste and human error; and moving beyond IRS by embracing the potential for new larval source management techniques and next generation technology such as unmanned "smart" spray systems. The meeting served to lay the foundation for broader collaboration between the IVCC and AFPMB and partners in industry, the World Health Organization, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Rwanda | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 73 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 8 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 18% |
| Engineering | 7 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 22% |
| Unknown | 12 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 March 2019.
All research outputs
#5,655,556
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,449
of 5,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,140
of 274,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#26
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.