Review of the ecology and behaviour of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in Western Africa and implications for vector control.

Western Africa is vulnerable to arboviral disease transmission, having recently experienced major outbreaks of chikungunya, dengue, yellow fever and Zika. However, there have been relatively few studies on the natural history of the two major human arbovirus vectors in this region, Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus, potentially limiting the implementation of effective vector control. We systematically searched for and reviewed relevant studies on the behaviour and ecology of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus in Western Africa, published over the last 40 years. We identified 73 relevant studies, over half of which were conducted in Nigeria, Senegal, or Côte d'Ivoire. Most studies investigated the ecology of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus, exploring the impact of seasonality and land cover on mosquito populations and identifying aquatic habitats. This review highlights the adaptation of Ae. albopictus to urban environments and its invasive potential, and the year-round maintenance of Ae. aegypti populations in water storage containers. However, important gaps were identified in the literature on the behaviour of both species, particularly Ae. albopictus. In Western Africa, Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus appear to be mainly anthropophilic and to bite predominantly during the day, but further research is needed to confirm this to inform planning of effective vector control strategies. We discuss the public health implications of these findings and comment on the suitability of existing and novel options for control in Western Africa.

'You want to deal with power while riding on power': global perspectives on power in participatory health research and co-production approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Power relations permeate research partnerships and compromise the ability of participatory research approaches to bring about transformational and sustainable change. This study aimed to explore how participatory health researchers engaged in co-production research perceive and experience 'power', and how it is discussed and addressed within the context of research partnerships. METHODS: Five online workshops were carried out with participatory health researchers working in different global contexts. Transcripts of the workshops were analysed thematically against the 'Social Ecology of Power' framework and mapped at the micro (individual), meso (interpersonal) or macro (structural) level. RESULTS: A total of 59 participants, with participatory experience in 24 different countries, attended the workshops. At the micro level, key findings included the rarity of explicit discussions on the meaning and impact of power, the use of reflexivity for examining assumptions and power differentials, and the perceived importance of strengthening co-researcher capacity to shift power. At the meso level, participants emphasised the need to manage co-researcher expectations, create spaces for trusted dialogue, and consider the potential risks faced by empowered community partners. Participants were divided over whether gatekeeper engagement aided the research process or acted to exclude marginalised groups from participating. At the macro level, colonial and 'traditional' research legacies were acknowledged to have generated and maintained power inequities within research partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: The 'Social Ecology of Power' framework is a useful tool for engaging with power inequities that cut across the social ecology, highlighting how they can operate at the micro, meso and macro level. This study reiterates that power is pervasive, and that while many researchers are intentional about engaging with power, actions and available tools must be used more systematically to identify and address power imbalances in participatory research partnerships, in order to contribute to improved equity and social justice outcomes.