Community perceptions, acceptability, and the durability of house screening interventions against exposure to malaria vectors in Nyimba district, Zambia.

BACKGROUND: House screening remains conspicuously absent in national malaria programs despite its recognition by the World Health Organization as a supplementary malaria vector-control intervention. This may be attributed, in part, to the knowledge gap in screen durability or longevity in local climatic conditions and community acceptance under specific cultural practices and socio-economic contexts. The objectives of this study were to assess the durability of window and door wire mesh screens a year after full house screening and to assess the acceptability of the house screening intervention to the participants involved. METHODS: This study was conducted in Nyimba district, Zambia and used both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and analysis. Both direct observation and questionnaires were employed to assess the durability of the screens and the main reasons for damage. Findings on damage were summarized as percentages. Focus group discussions were used to assess people's knowledge, perceptions, and acceptability of the closing eaves and house screening intervention. Deductive coding and inductive coding were used to analyse the qualitative data. RESULTS: A total of 321 out of 400 (80.3%) household owners of screened houses were interviewed. Many window screens (90.3%) were intact. In sharp contrast, most door screens were torn (n = 150; 46.7%) or entirely removed (n = 55; 17.1%). Most doors (n = 114; 76%) had their wire mesh damaged or removed on the bottom half. Goats (25.4%), rust (17.6%) and children (17.1%) were cited most as the cause of damage to door screens. The focus group discussion elicited positive experiences from the participants following the closing of eaves and screening of their windows and doors, ranging from sleeping peacefully due to reduced mosquito biting and/or nuisance and having fewer insects in the house. Participants linked house screening to reduced malaria in their households and community. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that in rural south-east Zambia, closing eaves and screening windows and doors was widely accepted. Participants perceived that house screening reduced human-vector contact, reduced the malaria burden and nuisance biting from other potentially disease carrying insects. However, screened doors are prone to damage, mainly by children, domestic animals, rust, and termites.

Anopheles rufipes implicated in malaria transmission both indoors and outdoors alongside Anopheles funestus and Anopheles arabiensis in rural south-east Zambia.

BACKGROUND: The primary malaria vector-control interventions, indoor residual spraying and long-lasting insecticidal nets, are effective against indoor biting and resting mosquito species. Consequently, outdoor biting and resting malaria vectors might elude the primary interventions and sustain malaria transmission. Varied vector biting and resting behaviour calls for robust entomological surveillance. This study investigated the bionomics of malaria vectors in rural south-east Zambia, focusing on species composition, their resting and host-seeking behaviour and sporozoite infection rates. METHODS: The study was conducted in Nyimba District, Zambia. Randomly selected households served as sentinel houses for monthly collection of mosquitoes indoors using CDC-light traps (CDC-LTs) and pyrethrum spray catches (PSC), and outdoors using only CDC-LTs for 12 months. Mosquitoes were identified using morphological taxonomic keys. Specimens belonging to the Anopheles gambiae complex and Anopheles funestus group were further identified using molecular techniques. Plasmodium falciparum sporozoite infection was determined using sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. RESULTS: From 304 indoor and 257 outdoor light trap-nights and 420 resting collection, 1409 female Anopheles species mosquitoes were collected and identified morphologically; An. funestus (n = 613; 43.5%), An. gambiae sensu lato (s.l.)(n = 293; 20.8%), Anopheles pretoriensis (n = 282; 20.0%), Anopheles maculipalpis (n = 130; 9.2%), Anopheles rufipes (n = 55; 3.9%), Anopheles coustani s.l. (n = 33; 2.3%), and Anopheles squamosus (n = 3, 0.2%). Anopheles funestus sensu stricto (s.s.) (n = 144; 91.1%) and Anopheles arabiensis (n = 77; 77.0%) were the dominant species within the An. funestus group and An. gambiae complex, respectively. Overall, outdoor CDC-LTs captured more Anopheles mosquitoes (mean = 2.25, 95% CI 1.22-3,28) than indoor CDC-LTs (mean = 2.13, 95% CI 1.54-2.73). Fewer resting mosquitoes were collected with PSC (mean = 0.44, 95% CI 0.24-0.63). Sporozoite infectivity rates for An. funestus, An. arabiensis and An. rufipes were 2.5%, 0.57% and 9.1%, respectively. Indoor entomological inoculation rates (EIRs) for An. funestus s.s, An. arabiensis and An. rufipes were estimated at 4.44, 1.15 and 1.20 infectious bites/person/year respectively. Outdoor EIRs for An. funestus s.s. and An. rufipes at 7.19 and 4.31 infectious bites/person/year, respectively. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that An. rufipes may play an important role in malaria transmission alongside An. funestus s.s. and An. arabiensis in the study location.