Community-owned resource persons for malaria vector control: enabling factors and challenges in an operational programme in Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania

Table 2 Factors associated with mosquito larval habitat detection coverage

Interviewee response	*Proportion of respondent CORPs* *%(a/64)*	*Proportion of habitats detected by CORPs* *%(n/N)*	OR [95%CI]	P
*Clear knowledge of project goal and advocacy level*	NA	NA	NA	0.002
Complete	59 (38)	70.0 (1281/1829)	1.00^b	NA
Incomplete	41 (26)	59.4 (675/1136)	0.596 [0.403,0.880]	0.009
*Who individuals were recruited by*	NA	NA	NA	0.004
Community local leaders	79 (50)	68.4 (1625/2375)	1.00^b	NA
Project administrative staff	22 (14)	56.1 (331/590)	0.660 [0.438,0.995]	0.047
*Perceived relationship with the residents*	NA	NA	NA	0.028
Very supportive	64 (41)	62.7 (1068/1703)	1.00^b	NA
Reasonably supportive	36 (23)	70.4 (888/1262)	1.627 [1.053,2.515]	0.028
*Time spent to get to the field*	NA	NA	NA	0.011
Less than or equal to quarter an hour	73 (47)	65.0 (1477/2273)	1.00^b	NA
Above quarter but less than half an hour	17 (11)	78.5 (350/446)	1.943 [0.965,3.912]	0.063
More than half an hour to one hour	9 (6)	52.4 (129/246)	0.522 [0.288,0.946]	0.032

The probability that a wet habitat was detected by the CORPs was modelled with a binary distribution and logit link function using Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) treating clarity and advocacy level, recruiting level, relationship with the residents and the time individuals used to get to the field as potential predictors (exluded factors included: where individuals lived (P = 0.997) and frequency of field visits by supervisor (P = 0.892))
^a number of CORPs
CI: confidence interval
OR: Odds ratio
^b the reference group for the particular variable
N: the number of wet habitats found during the cross-sectional surveys
N: the number of wet habitats found by CORPs during their routine habitat survey,
NA: Not applicable

ISSN: 1478-4491