↓ Skip to main content

The field evaluation of a push-pull system to control malaria vectors in Northern Belize, Central America

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

Mentioned by

2 tweeters


27 Dimensions

Readers on

65 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.
The field evaluation of a push-pull system to control malaria vectors in Northern Belize, Central America
Published in
Malaria Journal, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0692-5
Pubmed ID

Joseph M Wagman, John P Grieco, Kim Bautista, Jorge Polanco, Ireneo Briceño, Russell King, Nicole L Achee


Campaigns for the continued reduction and eventual elimination of malaria may benefit from new and innovative vector control tools. One novel approach being considered uses a push-pull strategy, whereby spatial repellents are used in combination with outdoor baited traps. The desired effect is the behavioural manipulation of mosquito populations to elicit movement of vectors away from people and into traps. Here, a prototype push-pull intervention was evaluated using an experimental hut methodology to test proof-of-principle for the strategy against two natural vector populations, Anopheles albimanus and Anopheles vestitipennis, in Belize, Central America. A Latin square study design was used to compare mosquito entry into experimental huts and outdoor traps across four different experimental conditions: 1) control, with no interventions; 2) pull, utilizing only outdoor traps; 3) push, utilizing only an indoor spatial repellent; and 4) push-pull, utilizing both interventions simultaneously. For An. vestitipennis, the combined use of an indoor repellent and outdoor baited traps reduced average nightly mosquito hut entry by 39% (95% CI: [0.37 - 0.41]) as compared to control and simultaneously increased the nightly average densities of An. vestitipennis captured in outdoor baited traps by 48% (95% CI: [0.22 - 0.74]), compared to when no repellent was used. Against An. albimanus, the combined push-pull treatment similarly reduced hut entry, by 54% (95% CI: [0.40 - 0.68]) as compared to control; however, the presence of a repellent indoors did not affect overall outdoor trap catch densities for this species. Against both anopheline species, the combined intervention did not further reduce mosquito hut entry compared to the use of repellent alone. The prototype intervention evaluated here clearly demonstrated that push-pull strategies have potential to reduce human-vector interactions inside homes by reducing mosquito entry, and highlighted the possibility for the strategy to simultaneously decrease human-vector interactions outside of homes by increasing baited trap collections. However, the variation in effect on different vectors demonstrates the need to characterize the underlying behavioral ecology of target mosquitoes in order to drive local optimization of the intervention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 62 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 25%
Researcher 14 22%
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 45%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 6 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 May 2015.
All research outputs
of 19,211,930 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
of 5,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 240,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,211,930 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 240,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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