Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Assessing national vector control micro-plannin...

Associated organisational unit

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Assessing national vector control micro-planning in Zambia using the 2021 malaria indicator survey

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published
  • Irene Kyomuhangi
  • Andrew Andrada
  • Zhiyuan Mao
  • Derek Pollard
  • Christina Riley
  • Adam Bennett
  • Busiku Hamainza
  • Hannah Slater
  • Justin Millar
  • Thomas P. Eisele
  • Kafula Silumbe
Close
Article number365
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>30/11/2023
<mark>Journal</mark>Malaria Journal
Volume22
Publication StatusPublished
<mark>Original language</mark>English

Abstract

Background
In 2020, the Zambia National Malaria Elimination Centre targeted the distribution of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor-residual spraying (IRS) campaigns based on sub-district micro-planning, where specified geographical areas at the health facility catchment level were assigned to receive either LLINs or IRS. Using data from the 2021 Malaria Indicator Survey (MIS), the objectives of this analysis were to (1) assess how well the micro-planning was followed in distributing LLINs and IRS, (2) investigate factors that contributed to whether households received what was planned, and (3) investigate how overall coverage observed in the 2021 MIS compared to the 2018 MIS conducted prior to micro-planning.

Methods
Households’ receipt of ≥ 1 LLIN, and/or IRS within the past 12 months in the 2021 MIS, was compared against the micro-planning area under which the households fell. GPS points for 3,550 households were overlayed onto digitized micro-planning maps in order to determine what micro-plan the households fell under, and thus whether they received their planned intervention. Mixed-effects regression models were conducted to investigate what factors affected whether these households: (1) received their planned intervention, and (2) received any intervention. Finally, coverage indicators between the 2021 and 2018 MIS were compared.

Results
Overall, 60.0% (95%CI 55.4, 64.4) of households under a micro-plan received their assigned intervention, with significantly higher coverage of the planned intervention in LLIN-assigned areas (75.7% [95%CI 69.5, 80.9]) compared to IRS-assigned areas (49.4% [95%CI: 44.4, 54.4]). Regression analysis indicated that households falling under the IRS micro-plan had significantly reduced odds of receiving their planned intervention (OR: 0.34 [95%CI 0.24, 0.48]), and significantly reduced odds of receiving any intervention (OR: 0.51 [95%CI 0.37, 0.72] ), compared to households under the LLIN micro-plan. Comparison between the 2021 and 2018 MIS indicated a 27% reduction in LLIN coverage nationally in 2021, while IRS coverage was similar. Additionally, between 2018 and 2021, there was a 13% increase in households that received neither intervention.

Conclusions
This analysis shows that although the micro-planning strategy adopted in 2020 worked much better for LLIN-assigned areas compared to IRS-assigned areas, there was reduced overall vector control coverage in 2021 compared to 2018 before micro-planning.