dc.contributor.author | Ulrike, Fillinger | |
dc.contributor.author | Adrian, Denz | |
dc.contributor.author | Margaret, M. Njoroge | |
dc.contributor.author | Mohamed, M. Tambwe | |
dc.contributor.author | Willem, Takken | |
dc.contributor.author | Joop J., A. van Loon | |
dc.contributor.author | Sarah, J. Moore | |
dc.contributor.author | Adam, Saddler | |
dc.contributor.author | Nakul, Chitnis | |
dc.contributor.author | Hiscox, Alexandra | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-09-14T15:08:25Z | |
dc.date.available | 2023-09-14T15:08:25Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12562/1856 | |
dc.description | publication | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Novel malaria vector control strategies targeting the odour-orientation of mosquitoes during host-seeking, such as ‘attract-and-kill’ or ‘push-and-pull’, have been suggested as complementary tools to indoor residual spraying and long-lasting insecticidal nets. These would be particularly beneficial if they can target vectors in the peri-domestic space where people are unprotected by traditional interventions. A randomized double-blind placebo-control study was implemented in western Kenya to evaluate: a ‘push’ intervention (spatial repellent) using transfluthrin-treated fabric strips positioned at open eave gaps of houses; a ‘pull’ intervention placing an odour-baited mosquito trap at a 5 m distance from a house; the combined ‘push–pull’ package; and the control where houses contained all elements but without active ingredients. Treatments were rotated through 12 houses in a randomized-block design. Outdoor biting was estimated using human landing catches, and indoor mosquito densities using light-traps. None of the interventions provided any protection from outdoor biting malaria vectors. The ‘push’ reduced indoor vector densities dominated by Anopheles funestus by around two thirds. The ‘pull’ device did not add any benefit. In the light of the high Anopheles arabiensis biting densities outdoors in the study location, the search for efficient outdoor protection and effective pull components needs to continue. | en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship | Innovative Vector Control Consortium (IVCC) Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, and the Government of the Republic of Kenya. Swiss National Science Foundation Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Wageningen University and Research (WUR) Swiss National Science Foundation | en_US |
dc.publisher | Scientific Report | en_US |
dc.rights | Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States | * |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ | * |
dc.subject | randomized | en_US |
dc.subject | double-blind | en_US |
dc.subject | placebo-control | en_US |
dc.subject | odour-based ‘push–pull | en_US |
dc.subject | malaria vector | en_US |
dc.subject | human-vector contact | en_US |
dc.title | A randomized, double-blind placebo-control study assessing the protective efficacy of an odour-based ‘push–pull’ malaria vector control strategy in reducing human-vector contact | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
The following license files are associated with this item: