↓ Skip to main content

A systematic, realist review of zooprophylaxis for malaria control

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

5 tweeters


33 Dimensions

Readers on

102 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.
A systematic, realist review of zooprophylaxis for malaria control
Published in
Malaria Journal, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0822-0
Pubmed ID

Blánaid Donnelly, Lea Berrang-Ford, Nancy A Ross, Pascal Michel


Integrated vector management (IVM) is recommended as a sustainable approach to malaria control. IVM consists of combining vector control methods based on scientific evidence to maximize efficacy and cost-effectiveness while minimizing negative impacts, such as insecticide resistance and environmental damage. Zooprophylaxis has been identified as a possible component of IVM as livestock may draw mosquitoes away from humans, decreasing human-vector contact and malaria transmission. It is possible, however, that livestock may actually draw mosquitoes to humans, increasing malaria transmission (zoopotentiation). The goal of this paper is to take a realist approach to a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature to understand the contexts under which zooprophylaxis or zoopotentiation occur. Three electronic databases were searched using the keywords 'zooprophylaxis' and 'zoopotentiation', and forward and backward citation tracking employed, to identify relevant articles. Only empirical, peer-reviewed articles were included. Critical appraisal was applied to articles retained for full review. Twenty empirical studies met inclusion criteria after critical appraisal. A range of experimental and observational study designs were reported. Outcome measures included human malaria infection and mosquito feeding behaviour. Two key factors were consistently associated with zooprophylaxis and zoopotentiation: the characteristics of the local mosquito vector, and the location of livestock relative to human sleeping quarters. These associations were modified by the use of bed nets and socio-economic factors. This review suggests that malaria risk is reduced (zooprophylaxis) in areas where predominant mosquito species do not prefer human hosts, where livestock are kept at a distance from human sleeping quarters at night, and where mosquito nets or other protective measures are used. Zoopotentiation occurs where livestock are housed within or near human sleeping quarters at night and where mosquito species prefer human hosts. The evidence suggests that zooprophylaxis could be part of an effective strategy to reduce malaria transmission under specific ecological and geographical conditions. The current scientific evidence base is inconclusive on understanding the role of socio-economic factors, optimal distance between livestock and human sleeping quarters, and the effect of animal species and number on zooprophylaxis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Madagascar 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Unknown 98 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 18%
Student > Master 18 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 25 25%
Unknown 12 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 21%
Environmental Science 9 9%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 7%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 13 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 August 2015.
All research outputs
of 15,265,759 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
of 4,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 236,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,265,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,346 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 236,460 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them