↓ Skip to main content

Studies on mosquito biting risk among migratory rice farmers in rural south-eastern Tanzania and development of a portable mosquito-proof hut

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 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
Studies on mosquito biting risk among migratory rice farmers in rural south-eastern Tanzania and development of a portable mosquito-proof hut
Published in
Malaria Journal, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1616-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johnson K. Swai, Marceline F. Finda, Edith P. Madumla, Godfrey F. Lingamba, Irene R. Moshi, Mohamed Y. Rafiq, Silas Majambere, Fredros O. Okumu

Abstract

Subsistence rice farmers in south-eastern Tanzania are often migratory, spending weeks or months tending to crops in distant fields along the river valleys and living in improvised structures known as Shamba huts, not fully protected from mosquitoes. These farmers also experience poor access to organized preventive and curative services due to long distances. Mosquito biting exposure in these rice fields, relative to main village residences was assessed, then a portable mosquito-proof hut was developed and tested for protecting these migratory farmers. Pair-wise mosquito surveys were conducted in four villages in Ulanga district, south-eastern Tanzania in 20 randomly-selected Shamba huts located in the distant rice fields and in 20 matched houses within the main villages, to assess biting densities and Plasmodium infection rates. A portable mosquito-proof hut was designed and tested in semi-field and field settings against Shamba hut replicas, and actual Shamba huts. Also, semi-structured interviews were conducted, timed-participant observations, and focus-group discussions to assess experiences and behaviours of the farmers regarding mosquito-bites and the mosquito-proof huts. There were equal numbers of mosquitoes in Shamba huts and main houses [RR (95% CI) 27 (25.1-31.2), and RR (95% CI) 30 (27.5-33.4)], respectively (P > 0.05). Huts having >1 occupant had more mosquitoes than those with just one occupant, regardless of site [RR (95% CI) 1.57 (1.30-1.9), P < 0.05]. Open eaves [RR (95% CI) 1.15 (1.08-1.23), P < 0.05] and absence of window shutters [RR (95% CI) 2.10 (1.91-2.31), P < 0.05] increased catches of malaria vectors. All Anopheles mosquitoes caught were negative for Plasmodium. Common night-time outdoor activities in the fields included cooking, eating, fetching water or firewood, washing dishes, bathing, and storytelling, mostly between 6 and 11 p.m., when mosquitoes were also biting most. The prototype hut provided 100% protection in semi-field and field settings, while blood-fed mosquitoes were recaptured in Shamba huts, even when occupants used permethrin-impregnated bed nets. Though equal numbers of mosquitoes were caught between main houses and normal Shamba huts, the higher proportions of blood-fed mosquitoes, reduced access to organized healthcare and reduced effectiveness of LLINs, may increase vulnerability of the itinerant farmers. The portable mosquito-proof hut offered sufficient protection against disease-transmitting mosquitoes. Such huts could be improved to expand protection for migratory farmers and possibly other disenfranchised communities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 135 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 19%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 5 4%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 48 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 13%
Environmental Science 14 10%
Social Sciences 13 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 56 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 11 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,241,730
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#480
of 5,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,895
of 415,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#14
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,581 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 415,139 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.