↓ Skip to main content

Going beyond personal protection against mosquito bites to eliminate malaria transmission: population suppression of malaria vectors that exploit both human and animal blood

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Global Health Journal, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Going beyond personal protection against mosquito bites to eliminate malaria transmission: population suppression of malaria vectors that exploit both human and animal blood
Published in
BMJ Global Health Journal, April 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000198
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerry F Killeen, Samson S Kiware, Fredros O Okumu, Marianne E Sinka, Catherine L Moyes, N Claire Massey, Peter W Gething, John M Marshall, Carlos J Chaccour, Lucy S Tusting

Abstract

Protecting individuals and households against mosquito bites with long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) or indoor residual spraying (IRS) can suppress entire populations of unusually efficient malaria vector species that predominantly feed indoors on humans. Mosquitoes which usually feed on animals are less reliant on human blood, so they are far less vulnerable to population suppression effects of such human-targeted insecticidal measures. Fortunately, the dozens of mosquito species which primarily feed on animals are also relatively inefficient vectors of malaria, so personal protection against mosquito bites may be sufficient to eliminate transmission. However, a handful of mosquito species are particularly problematic vectors of residual malaria transmission, because they feed readily on both humans and animals. These unusual vectors feed often enough on humans to be potent malaria vectors, but also often enough on animals to evade population control with LLINs, IRS or any other insecticidal personal protection measure targeted only to humans. Anopheles arabiensis and A. coluzzii in Africa, A. darlingi in South America and A. farauti in Oceania, as well as A. culicifacies species E, A. fluviatilis species S, A. lesteri and A. minimus in Asia, all feed readily on either humans or animals and collectively mediate residual malaria transmission across most of the tropics. Eliminating malaria transmission by vectors exhibiting such dual host preferences will require aggressive mosquito population abatement, rather than just personal protection of humans. Population suppression of even these particularly troublesome vectors is achievable with a variety of existing vector control technologies that remain underdeveloped or underexploited.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 103 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 22%
Student > Master 19 18%
Researcher 17 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 5%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 24 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 16 July 2021.
All research outputs
#3,131,974
of 19,140,651 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Global Health Journal
#1,285
of 1,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,934
of 277,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Global Health Journal
#23
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,140,651 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,929 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.7. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 277,378 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.