Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 6 Effect of different spatial repellent coverage scenarios on household densities of blood-fed mosquitoes

From: A crossover study to evaluate the diversion of malaria vectors in a community with incomplete coverage of spatial repellents in the Kilombero Valley, Tanzania

  Na nb IRRc 95 % CI-IRRd P-value
Anopheles arabiensis
 No coverage 54 (18) 252 1
 Complete coverage 54 (18) 202 0.91 0.68–1.21 0.59
 Incomplete coverage: repellent users 108 (36) 363 0.89 0.67–1.18 0.34
 Incomplete coverage: repellent non-users 108 (36) 133 0.86 0.62–1.19 0.32
Anopheles funestus
 No coverage 54 (18) 124 1
 Complete coverage 54 (18) 226 1.35 1.01–1.80 0.04
 Incomplete coverage: repellent users 108 (36) 289 1.39 1.04–1.86 0.02
 Incomplete coverage: repellent non-users 108 (36) 139 1.27 0.91–1.76 0.15
Culex spp.
 No coverage 54 (18) 478 1
 Complete coverage 54 (18) 301 0.80 0.60–1.06 0.11
 Incomplete coverage: repellent users 108 (36) 634 1.04 0.79–1.37 0.78
 Incomplete coverage: repellent non-users 108 (36) 262 1.15 0.84–1.58 0.39
  1. aN, number of days assigned to each coverage scenario (number of weeks)
  2. bn, sum of the total number of blood fed mosquitoes collected resting indoors and outdoors per coverage scenario
  3. cIRR, Incidence Rate Ratio
  4. d95 %-IRR, 95 % confidence interval of incidence rate ratio