Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Factors associated with mosquito larval habitat detection coverage

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

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) 1.00b 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) 1.00b 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) 1.00b 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) 1.00b 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
  1. 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))
  2. a number of CORPs
  3. CI: confidence interval
  4. OR: Odds ratio
  5. b the reference group for the particular variable
  6. N: the number of wet habitats found during the cross-sectional surveys
  7. N: the number of wet habitats found by CORPs during their routine habitat survey,
  8. NA: Not applicable