Comparing prioritization strategies for delivering indoor residual spray (IRS) implementation, using a network approach
Abstract Background Indoor residual spraying (IRS) is an effective method to control malaria-transmitting Anopheles mosquitoes and often complements insecticide-treated mosquito nets, the predominant malaria vector control intervention. With insufficient funds to cover every household, malaria contr...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2020-09-01
|
| Series: | Malaria Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12936-020-03398-z |
| _version_ | 1818950142974230528 |
|---|---|
| author | Sadie J. Ryan Anne C. Martin Bhavneet Walia Anna Winters David A. Larsen |
| author_facet | Sadie J. Ryan Anne C. Martin Bhavneet Walia Anna Winters David A. Larsen |
| author_sort | Sadie J. Ryan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Indoor residual spraying (IRS) is an effective method to control malaria-transmitting Anopheles mosquitoes and often complements insecticide-treated mosquito nets, the predominant malaria vector control intervention. With insufficient funds to cover every household, malaria control programs must balance the malaria risk to a particular human community against the financial cost of spraying that community. This study creates a framework for modelling the distance to households for targeting IRS implementation, and applies it to potential risk prioritization strategies in four provinces (Luapula, Muchinga, Eastern, and Northern) in Zambia. Methods Optimal network models were used to assess the travel distance of routes between operations bases and human communities identified through remote sensing. Network travel distances were compared to Euclidean distances, to demonstrate the importance of accounting for road routes. The distance to reaching communities for different risk prioritization strategies were then compared assuming sufficient funds to spray 50% of households, using four underlying malarial risk maps: (a) predicted Plasmodium falciparum parasite rate in 2–10 years olds (PfPR), or (b) predicted probability of the presence of each of three main malaria transmitting anopheline vectors (Anopheles arabiensis, Anopheles funestus, Anopheles gambiae). Results The estimated one-way network route distance to reach communities to deliver IRS ranged from 0.05 to 115.69 km. Euclidean distance over and under-estimated these routes by − 101.21 to 41.79 km per trip, as compared to the network route method. There was little overlap between risk map prioritization strategies, both at a district-by-district scale, and across all four provinces. At both scales, agreement for inclusion or exclusion from IRS across all four prioritization strategies occurred in less than 10% of houses. The distances to reaching prioritized communities were either lower, or not statistically different from non-prioritized communities, at both scales of strategy. Conclusion Variation in distance to targeted communities differed depending on risk prioritization strategy used, and higher risk prioritization did not necessarily translate into greater distances in reaching a human community. These findings from Zambia suggest that areas with higher malaria burden may not necessarily be more remote than areas with lower malaria burden. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-20T09:13:54Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e3dcd479b09c4cd6b577fe407766186c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1475-2875 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-20T09:13:54Z |
| publishDate | 2020-09-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Malaria Journal |
| spelling | doaj.art-e3dcd479b09c4cd6b577fe407766186c2022-12-21T19:45:28ZengBMCMalaria Journal1475-28752020-09-011911910.1186/s12936-020-03398-zComparing prioritization strategies for delivering indoor residual spray (IRS) implementation, using a network approachSadie J. Ryan0Anne C. Martin1Bhavneet Walia2Anna Winters3David A. Larsen4Quantitative Disease Ecology and Conservation (QDEC) Lab, Department of Geography, University of FloridaAkrosDepartment of Public Health, Syracuse UniversityAkrosDepartment of Public Health, Syracuse UniversityAbstract Background Indoor residual spraying (IRS) is an effective method to control malaria-transmitting Anopheles mosquitoes and often complements insecticide-treated mosquito nets, the predominant malaria vector control intervention. With insufficient funds to cover every household, malaria control programs must balance the malaria risk to a particular human community against the financial cost of spraying that community. This study creates a framework for modelling the distance to households for targeting IRS implementation, and applies it to potential risk prioritization strategies in four provinces (Luapula, Muchinga, Eastern, and Northern) in Zambia. Methods Optimal network models were used to assess the travel distance of routes between operations bases and human communities identified through remote sensing. Network travel distances were compared to Euclidean distances, to demonstrate the importance of accounting for road routes. The distance to reaching communities for different risk prioritization strategies were then compared assuming sufficient funds to spray 50% of households, using four underlying malarial risk maps: (a) predicted Plasmodium falciparum parasite rate in 2–10 years olds (PfPR), or (b) predicted probability of the presence of each of three main malaria transmitting anopheline vectors (Anopheles arabiensis, Anopheles funestus, Anopheles gambiae). Results The estimated one-way network route distance to reach communities to deliver IRS ranged from 0.05 to 115.69 km. Euclidean distance over and under-estimated these routes by − 101.21 to 41.79 km per trip, as compared to the network route method. There was little overlap between risk map prioritization strategies, both at a district-by-district scale, and across all four provinces. At both scales, agreement for inclusion or exclusion from IRS across all four prioritization strategies occurred in less than 10% of houses. The distances to reaching prioritized communities were either lower, or not statistically different from non-prioritized communities, at both scales of strategy. Conclusion Variation in distance to targeted communities differed depending on risk prioritization strategy used, and higher risk prioritization did not necessarily translate into greater distances in reaching a human community. These findings from Zambia suggest that areas with higher malaria burden may not necessarily be more remote than areas with lower malaria burden.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12936-020-03398-zResidual sprayingNetwork modelingOptimal routesRisk mappingZambiaMalaria |
| spellingShingle | Sadie J. Ryan Anne C. Martin Bhavneet Walia Anna Winters David A. Larsen Comparing prioritization strategies for delivering indoor residual spray (IRS) implementation, using a network approach Malaria Journal Residual spraying Network modeling Optimal routes Risk mapping Zambia Malaria |
| title | Comparing prioritization strategies for delivering indoor residual spray (IRS) implementation, using a network approach |
| title_full | Comparing prioritization strategies for delivering indoor residual spray (IRS) implementation, using a network approach |
| title_fullStr | Comparing prioritization strategies for delivering indoor residual spray (IRS) implementation, using a network approach |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparing prioritization strategies for delivering indoor residual spray (IRS) implementation, using a network approach |
| title_short | Comparing prioritization strategies for delivering indoor residual spray (IRS) implementation, using a network approach |
| title_sort | comparing prioritization strategies for delivering indoor residual spray irs implementation using a network approach |
| topic | Residual spraying Network modeling Optimal routes Risk mapping Zambia Malaria |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12936-020-03398-z |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sadiejryan comparingprioritizationstrategiesfordeliveringindoorresidualsprayirsimplementationusinganetworkapproach AT annecmartin comparingprioritizationstrategiesfordeliveringindoorresidualsprayirsimplementationusinganetworkapproach AT bhavneetwalia comparingprioritizationstrategiesfordeliveringindoorresidualsprayirsimplementationusinganetworkapproach AT annawinters comparingprioritizationstrategiesfordeliveringindoorresidualsprayirsimplementationusinganetworkapproach AT davidalarsen comparingprioritizationstrategiesfordeliveringindoorresidualsprayirsimplementationusinganetworkapproach |