↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of non-pyrethroid insecticide-treated durable wall lining to control malaria in rural Tanzania: study protocol for a two-armed cluster randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The effectiveness of non-pyrethroid insecticide-treated durable wall lining to control malaria in rural Tanzania: study protocol for a two-armed cluster randomized trial
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3287-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

George Mtove, Joseph P. Mugasa, Louisa A. Messenger, Robert C. Malima, Peter Mangesho, Franklin Magogo, Mateusz Plucinski, Ramadhan Hashimu, Johnson Matowo, Donald Shepard, Bernard Batengana, Jackie Cook, Basiliana Emidi, Yara Halasa, Robert Kaaya, Aggrey Kihombo, Kimberly A. Lindblade, Geofrey Makenga, Robert Mpangala, Abraham Mwambuli, Ruth Mzava, Abubakary Mziray, George Olang, Richard M. Oxborough, Mohammed Seif, Edward Sambu, Aaron Samuels, Wema Sudi, John Thomas, Sophie Weston, Martin Alilio, Nancy Binkin, John Gimnig, Immo Kleinschmidt, Peter McElroy, Lawrence H. Moulton, Laura Norris, Trenton Ruebush, Meera Venkatesan, Mark Rowland, Franklin W. Mosha, William N. Kisinza

Abstract

Despite considerable reductions in malaria achieved by scaling-up long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS), maintaining sustained community protection remains operationally challenging. Increasing insecticide resistance also threatens to jeopardize the future of both strategies. Non-pyrethroid insecticide-treated wall lining (ITWL) may represent an alternate or complementary control method and a potential tool to manage insecticide resistance. To date no study has demonstrated whether ITWL can reduce malaria transmission nor provide additional protection beyond the current best practice of universal coverage (UC) of LLINs and prompt case management. A two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial will be conducted in rural Tanzania to assess whether non-pyrethroid ITWL and UC of LLINs provide added protection against malaria infection in children, compared to UC of LLINs alone. Stratified randomization based on malaria prevalence will be used to select 22 village clusters per arm. All 44 clusters will receive LLINs and half will also have ITWL installed on interior house walls. Study children, aged 6 months to 11 years old, will be enrolled from each cluster and followed monthly to estimate cumulative incidence of malaria parasitaemia (primary endpoint), time to first malaria episode and prevalence of anaemia before and after intervention. Entomological inoculation rate will be estimated using indoor CDC light traps and outdoor tent traps followed by detection of Anopheles gambiae species, sporozoite infection, insecticide resistance and blood meal source. ITWL bioefficacy and durability will be monitored using WHO cone bioassays and household surveys, respectively. Social and cultural factors influencing community and household ITWL acceptability will be explored through focus-group discussions and in-depth interviews. Cost-effectiveness, compared between study arms, will be estimated per malaria case averted. This protocol describes the large-scale evaluation of a novel vector control product, designed to overcome some of the known limitations of existing methods. If ITWL is proven to be effective and durable under field conditions, it may warrant consideration for programmatic implementation, particularly in areas with long transmission seasons and where pyrethroid-resistant vectors predominate. Trial findings will provide crucial information for policy makers in Tanzania and other malaria-endemic countries to guide resource allocations for future control efforts. NCT02533336 registered on 13 July 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 197 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 15%
Researcher 27 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 13%
Student > Bachelor 21 11%
Lecturer 7 4%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 63 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 9%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 4%
Other 33 17%
Unknown 73 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 July 2016.
All research outputs
#17,511,844
of 25,746,891 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#13,568
of 17,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,533
of 381,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#291
of 366 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,746,891 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 381,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 366 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.