↓ Skip to main content

Housing gaps, mosquitoes and public viewpoints: a mixed methods assessment of relationships between house characteristics, malaria vector biting risk and community perspectives in rural Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, August 2018
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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 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
Housing gaps, mosquitoes and public viewpoints: a mixed methods assessment of relationships between house characteristics, malaria vector biting risk and community perspectives in rural Tanzania
Published in
Malaria Journal, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-018-2450-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emmanuel W. Kaindoa, Marceline Finda, Jepchirchir Kiplagat, Gustav Mkandawile, Anna Nyoni, Maureen Coetzee, Fredros O. Okumu

Abstract

House improvement and environmental management can significantly improve malaria transmission control in endemic communities. This study assessed the influence of physical characteristics of houses and surrounding environments on mosquito biting risk in rural Tanzanian villages, and examined knowledge and perceptions of residents on relationships between these factors and malaria transmission. The study further assessed whether people worried about these risks and how they coped. Entomological surveys of indoor mosquito densities were conducted across four villages in Ulanga district, south-eastern Tanzania. The survey involved 48 sentinel houses sampled monthly and other sets of 48 houses randomly recruited each month for one-off sampling over 12 months. Physical characteristics of the houses and surrounding environments were recorded. Questionnaire surveys were administered to 200 household heads to assess their knowledge and concerns regarding the observed housing and environmental features, and whether they considered these features when constructing houses. Focus group discussions, were conducted to clarify emergent themes on people's perceptions on relationships between housing or environmental factors and malaria transmission. The entomological surveys showed statistically higher indoor densities of the malaria vectors (Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus) in houses with mud walls compared to plastered or brick walls, open eaves compared to closed eaves and unscreened windows compared to screened windows. Most respondents reported that their houses allowed mosquito entry, at least partially. Participants were aware that house structure and environmental characteristics influenced indoor mosquito densities and consequently malaria transmission. They were concerned about living in poorly-constructed houses with gaps on eaves, walls, windows and doors but were constrained by low income. In rural south-eastern Tanzania, significant proportions of people still live in houses with open eaves, unscreened windows and gaps on doors. Though they are fully aware of associated mosquito biting and pathogen transmission risks, they are constrained by low-income levels. The study proposes that community-based house improvement initiatives combined with targeted subsidies could lower the financial barriers, improve access to essential construction materials or designs, and significantly accelerate malaria transmission control in these communities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 171 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 16%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Lecturer 12 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 65 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 5%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Other 38 22%
Unknown 69 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,354,849
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#511
of 5,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,313
of 333,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#7
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,614 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 90% 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 333,251 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.