Abstract

BackgroundThe urban–rural designation has been an important risk factor in infectious disease epidemiology. Many studies rely on a politically determined dichotomization of rural versus urban spaces, which fails to capture the complex mosaic of infrastructural, social and environmental factors driving risk. Such evaluation is especially important for Plasmodium transmission and malaria disease. To improve targeting of anti-malarial interventions, a continuous composite measure of urbanicity using spatially-referenced data was developed to evaluate household-level malaria risk from a house-to-house survey of children in Malawi.MethodsChildren from 7564 households from eight districts throughout Malawi were tested for presence of Plasmodium parasites through finger-prick blood sampling and slide microscopy. A survey questionnaire was administered and latitude and longitude coordinates were recorded for each household. Distances from households to features associated with high and low levels of development (health facilities, roads, rivers, lakes) and population density were used to produce a principal component analysis (PCA)-based composite measure for all centroid locations of a fine geo-spatial grid covering Malawi. Regression methods were used to test associations of the urbanicity measure against Plasmodium infection status and to predict parasitaemia risk for all locations in Malawi.ResultsInfection probability declined with increasing urbanicity. The new urbanicity metric was more predictive than either a governmentally defined rural/urban dichotomous variable or a population density variable. One reason for this was that 23% of cells within politically defined rural areas exhibited lower risk, more like those normally associated with “urban” locations.ConclusionsIn addition to increasing predictive power, the new continuous urbanicity metric provided a clearer mechanistic understanding than the dichotomous urban/rural designations. Such designations often ignore urban-like, low-risk pockets within traditionally rural areas, as were found in Malawi, along with rural-like, potentially high-risk environments within urban areas. This method of characterizing urbanicity can be applied to other infectious disease processes in rapidly urbanizing contexts.

Highlights

  • The urban–rural designation has been an important risk factor in infectious disease epidemiology

  • Urbanicity measure and government classification Results of the principal component analysis (PCA) showed that all six urbanicity variables were strongly represented in the first and second Principal Component (PC) (Table 2)

  • The second PC is a combination of variables involving biogeographic aspects of urbanicity, e.g. elevation, proximity to lakes, and proximity to rivers and streams, which should be important to vector mosquito abundance

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The urban–rural designation has been an important risk factor in infectious disease epidemiology. Many studies rely on a politically determined dichotomization of rural versus urban spaces, which fails to capture the complex mosaic of infrastructural, social and environmental factors driving risk. Such evaluation is especially important for Plasmodium transmission and malaria disease. Considerable and diverse evidence demonstrates that health profiles differ between urban and rural areas across the globe, but especially in developing countries [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. As developing countries urbanize and potentially create new opportunities for infectious disease transmission and health [23], developing and testing new measures of urbanicity becomes critical

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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