Social acceptability and durability of two different house screening interventions against exposure to malaria vectors, Plasmodium falciparum infection, and anemia in children in the Gambia, West Africa

Abstract

The social acceptability and durability of two house screening interventions were addressed using focus group discussions, questionnaires, indoor climate measurements, and durability surveys. Participants recognized that screening stopped mosquitoes (79-96%) and other insects (86-98%) entering their houses. These and other benefits were appreciated by significantly more recipients of full screening than users of screened ceilings. Full screened houses were 0.26°C hotter at night (P = 0.05) than houses with screened ceilings and 0.51°C (P < 0.001) hotter than houses with no screening (28.43°C), though only 9% of full screened house users and 17% of screened ceiling users complained about the heat. Although 71% of screened doors and 85% of ceilings had suffered some damage after 12 months, the average number of holes of any size was < 5 for doors and < 7 for ceilings. In conclusion, house screening is a well-appreciated and durable vector control tool.

Figure 1.

Comparison of total holes in netting at 6 (black bars) and 12 (white) months after installation.

Figure 2.

Variation in mean indoor temperatures recorded every 30 minutes from unscreened, full screened, and screened ceiling houses.