↓ Skip to main content

Larval source management for malaria control in Africa: myths and reality

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, December 2011
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
180 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
380 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
Larval source management for malaria control in Africa: myths and reality
Published in
Malaria Journal, December 2011
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-10-353
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ulrike Fillinger, Steven W Lindsay

Abstract

As malaria declines in many African countries there is a growing realization that new interventions need to be added to the front-line vector control tools of long-lasting impregnated nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) that target adult mosquitoes indoors. Larval source management (LSM) provides the dual benefits of not only reducing numbers of house-entering mosquitoes, but, importantly, also those that bite outdoors. Large-scale LSM was a highly effective method of malaria control in the first half of the twentieth century, but was largely disbanded in favour of IRS with DDT. Today LSM continues to be used in large-scale mosquito abatement programmes in North America and Europe, but has only recently been tested in a few trials of malaria control in contemporary Africa. The results from these trials show that hand-application of larvicides can reduce transmission by 70-90% in settings where mosquito larval habitats are defined but is largely ineffectual where habitats are so extensive that not all of them can be covered on foot, such as areas that experience substantial flooding. Importantly recent evidence shows that LSM can be an effective method of malaria control, especially when combined with LLINs. Nevertheless, there are a number of misconceptions or even myths that hamper the advocacy for LSM by leading international institutions and the uptake of LSM by Malaria Control Programmes. Many argue that LSM is not feasible in Africa due to the high number of small and temporary larval habitats for Anopheles gambiae that are difficult to find and treat promptly. Reference is often made to the Ross-Macdonald model to reinforce the view that larval control is ineffective. This paper challenges the notion that LSM cannot be successfully used for malaria control in African transmission settings by highlighting historical and recent successes, discussing its potential in an integrated vector management approach working towards malaria elimination and critically reviewing the most common arguments that are used against the adoption of LSM.

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 380 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Senegal 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Philippines 1 <1%
Unknown 372 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 75 20%
Researcher 61 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 15%
Student > Bachelor 24 6%
Student > Postgraduate 22 6%
Other 59 16%
Unknown 81 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 97 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 54 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 7%
Environmental Science 19 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 4%
Other 71 19%
Unknown 98 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 20 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,744,278
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#630
of 5,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,227
of 242,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#11
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,539 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 well, scoring higher than 88% 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 242,407 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.