Abstract

BackgroundSouth Africa uses indoor residual spraying (IRS) for vector control in its malaria control programme (MCP). Insecticide-treated wall linings (ITWLs) offer possible advantages over IRS and long-lasting, insecticide-treated nets (LLINs). This study assessed the user acceptability and perceived effectiveness, and the durability, including efficacy through bioassays, of a newly developed, monofilament polyethylene ITWL.MethodsFour ITWL formulations/treatments, two incorporated with deltamethrin and two with alpha-cypermethrin in concentrations ranging from 0.29 to 0.85 wt%, and untreated linings were randomly installed on the inner walls of traditional mud huts (n = 20) and modern brick houses (n = 20) in a community village in Vhembe District, Limpopo Province. The linings were exposed to conditions within these dwellings over 6 months. Data were collected monthly through questionnaires and entomological residual efficacy analysis of ITWL, as part of durability testing, was done bimonthly using WHO prescribed bioassays.ResultsMonofilament polyethylene ITWLs were successfully installed in traditional sleeping huts and in bedrooms of modern type brick houses. ITWL remained intact throughout the entire 6 months of the study. Participants did not express any dissatisfaction towards the linings although two participants indicated the product should be fitted at a lower level for better results. User perceived effectiveness was very high with participants reporting observed mortality of mosquitoes and other nuisance insects. This perception coincided with results obtained through residual efficacy bioassays where a 100 % knockdown and mortality of mosquitoes was recorded throughout the trial period. Acceptability regarding appearance, including colour, position and attachment method, was also satisfactory with some participants citing the lining as decorative. All participants opted to keep ITWL and residual long-term efficacy will be determined annually for a further 3 years.ConclusionsThe newly developed ITWLs are highly accepted amongst participants in an unsprayed section of a village in a malaria-endemic area. The perceived effectiveness that coincides with results obtained through bioassays and acceptance of the overall appearance of ITWL will be evaluated over a longer term to determine sustainability. With further developing and testing, this ITWL has the potential to become a sustainable and safer alternative vector control method.

Highlights

  • South Africa uses indoor residual spraying (IRS) for vector control in its malaria control programme (MCP)

  • This study focused on the community acceptability and perceived effectiveness of indoor wall linings in the Vhembe District, Limpopo Province, South Africa as a potential alternative vector control strategy

  • Different insecticidal treatments were tested in order to determine the most suitable formulation. Both deltamethrin and alpha-cypermethrin are listed as World Health Organization (WHO) Class III pesticides. They are deemed within the normal safety range for use during vector control and are WHO Pesticide Evaluation Schemes (WHOPES)-recommended insecticides for IRS and for mosquito nets [18]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

South Africa uses indoor residual spraying (IRS) for vector control in its malaria control programme (MCP). The World Health Organization (WHO) advocates the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) and long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) as the two principal methods of malaria vector control [1]. South Africa’s Malaria Control Programme (MCP) currently utilizes IRS for vector control purposes, but does not include the use of LLINs. The selection of a preferred method of vector control depends mainly on epidemiological conditions and operational settings, such as affordability, comparative efficacy and cost effectiveness of the two methods [3, 4]. Successful vector control is dependent on continued user cooperation, logistical viability and the existence of appropriate delivery systems [5] As intervention methods, both ITNs/LLINs and IRS have demonstrated comparable levels of efficacy [6, 7], in spite of successful implementation both methods have their respective shortcomings. LLINs only offer protection when sleeping underneath it, whilst mosquitoes can still bite people before they go to bed and are subjected to LLIN protection [8]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.