↓ Skip to main content

Modelling the relative abundance of the primary African vectors of malaria before and after the implementation of indoor, insecticide-based vector control

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 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
Modelling the relative abundance of the primary African vectors of malaria before and after the implementation of indoor, insecticide-based vector control
Published in
Malaria Journal, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1187-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marianne E. Sinka, Nick Golding, N. Claire Massey, Antoinette Wiebe, Zhi Huang, Simon I. Hay, Catherine L. Moyes

Abstract

Malaria remains a heavy burden across sub-Saharan Africa where transmission is maintained by some of the world's most efficient vectors. Indoor insecticide-based control measures have significantly reduced transmission, yet elimination remains a distant target. Knowing the relative abundance of the primary vector species can provide transmission models with much needed information to guide targeted control measures. Moreover, understanding how existing interventions are impacting on these relative abundances highlights where alternative control (e.g., larval source management) is needed. Using the habitat suitability probabilities generated by predictive species distribution models combined with data collated from the literature, a multinomial generalized additive model was applied to produce relative abundance estimates for Anopheles arabiensis, Anopheles funestus and Anopheles gambiae/Anopheles coluzzii. Using pre- and post-intervention abundance data, estimates of the effect of indoor insecticide-based interventions on these relative abundances were made and are illustrated in post-intervention maps. Conditional effect plots and relative abundance maps illustrate the individual species' predicted habitat suitability and how they interact when in sympatry. Anopheles arabiensis and An. funestus show an affinity in habitat preference at the expense of An. gambiae/An. coluzzii, whereas increasing habitat suitability for An. gambiae/An. coluzzii is conversely less suitable for An. arabiensis but has little effect on An. funestus. Indoor insecticide-based interventions had a negative impact on the relative abundance of An. funestus, and a lesser effect on An. arabiensis. Indoor residual spraying had the greatest impact on the relative abundance of An. funestus, and a lesser effect on An. gambiae/An. coluzzii. Insecticide-treated bed nets reduced the relative abundance of both species equally. These results do not indicate changes in the absolute abundance of these species, which may be reduced for all species overall. The maps presented here highlight the interactions between the primary vector species in sub-Saharan Africa and demonstrate that An. funestus is more susceptible to certain indoor-based insecticide interventions than An. gambiae/An. coluzzii, which in turn, is more susceptible than An. arabiensis. This may provide An. arabiensis with a competitive advantage where it is found in sympatry with other more endophilic vectors, and potentially increase the need for outdoor-based vector interventions to deal with any residual transmission barring the way to malaria elimination.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Unknown 148 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 18%
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 34 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 5%
Environmental Science 7 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 41 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,507,869
of 24,744,050 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,352
of 5,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,839
of 304,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#90
of 191 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,744,050 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 304,666 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 191 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.