CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 360Malaria Research and ControlMosquito-borne diseases and controlUrban and Rural Development Challenges

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The evidence for improving housing to reduce malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Tusting, Lucy S, Ippolito, Matthew M, Willey, Barbara A, Kleinschmidt, Immo, Dorsey, Grant, Gosling, Roly D, Lindsay, Steve W·2015·Malaria Journal
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0724-1PMC PMC4460721
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The global malaria burden has fallen since 2000, sometimes before large-scale vector control programmes were initiated. While long-lasting insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying are highly effective interventions, this study tests the hypothesis that improved housing can reduce malaria by decreasing house entry by malaria mosquitoes. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess whether modern housing is associated with a lower risk of malaria than traditional housing, across all age groups and malaria-endemic settings. Six electronic databases were searched to identify intervention and observational studies published from 1 January, 1900 to 13 December, 2013, measuring the association between house design and malaria. The primary outcome measures were parasite prevalence and incidence of clinical malaria. Crude and adjusted effects were combined in fixed- and random-effects meta-analyses, with sub-group analyses for: overall house type (traditional versus modern housing); screening; main wall, roof and floor materials; eave type; ceilings and elevation. RESULTS: Of 15,526 studies screened, 90 were included in a qualitative synthesis and 53 reported epidemiological outcomes, included in a meta-analysis. Of these, 39 (74%) showed trends towards a lower risk of epidemiological outcomes associated with improved house features. Of studies assessing the relationship between modern housing and malaria infection (n=11) and clinical malaria (n=5), all were observational, with very low to low quality evidence. Residents of modern houses had 47% lower odds of malaria infection compared to traditional houses (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0°53, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0°42-0°67, p< 0°001, five studies) and a 45-65% lower odds of clinical malaria (case-control studies: adjusted OR 0°35, 95 % CI 0°20-0°62, p<0°001, one study; cohort studies: adjusted rate ratio 0°55, 95% CI 0°36-0°84, p=0°005, three studies). Evidence of a high risk of bias was found within studies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite low quality evidence, the direction and consistency of effects indicate that housing is an important risk factor for malaria. Future research should evaluate the protective effect of specific house features and incremental housing improvements associated with socio-economic development.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12936-015-0724-1

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Changes in housing in sub-Saharan Africa, 1975–2012. Despite limited data, there is evidence that the quality of both urban and rural housing is improving in parts of SSA, including Bioko, Kenya, Ethiopia and Tanzania. a. Trends in housing in Bioko, Equatorial Guinea, 2009–2012 [18]. b. Proportion of homes with thatch and iron roofs in Kenya, 1993–2009 [33]. c. Proportion of homes with thatch and iron roofs in Ethiopia, 2000–2011 [33]. d. Estimated proportion of homes with concrete walls and iron roofs in Korogwe, Tanzania, 1975–2008 [34]. e. Percent reduction in the proportion of households with natural or rudimentary flooring in SSA (comparing earliest and latest available Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS); dates are shown for each country) [35]
Fig. 1 Changes in housing in sub-Saharan Africa, 1975–2012. Despite limited data, there is evidence that the quality of both urban and rural housing is improving in parts of SSA, including Bioko, Kenya, Ethiopia and Tanzania. a. Trends in housing in Bioko, Equatorial Guinea, 2009–2012 [18]. b. Proportion of homes with thatch and iron roofs in Kenya, 1993–2009 [33]. c. Proportion of homes with thatch and iron roofs in Ethiopia, 2000–2011 [33]. d. Estimated proportion of homes with concrete walls and iron roofs in Korogwe, Tanzania, 1975–2008 [34]. e. Percent reduction in the proportion of households with natural or rudimentary flooring in SSA (comparing earliest and latest available Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS); dates are shown for each country) [35]CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Study selection
Fig. 2 Study selectionCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Meta-analysis of the association between modern housing and malaria infection. Pooled effects from random-effects meta-analyses for crude (1°1°1) and adjusted (1°1°2) results are shown. Studies are divided into sub-groups by study design. Error bars show 95 % CIs; df = degrees of freedom. 1. Al-Makhlafi 2011 YEM: Good vs poor house quality; 2. Barber 1935 GRC: Modern (tiled roof, ceiling) vs traditional (thatched roof, reed or no ceiling); 3. Butraporn 1935 THA: Permanent vs semi-permanent or temporary; 4. Dahesh 2009 EGY: Painted brick walls and cement ceilings vs mud walls and wood or mud ceilings; 5. de Alemida 2010 TLS: Complete vs incomplete house; 6. Osterbauer 2012 UGA: Modern (iron roof, burnt brick or cement walls and cement floor) vs traditional; 7. van der Hoek 2003 LKA: Modern (brick walls and permanent roof material) vs traditional (mud walls or thatched roof); 8. Wolff 2001 MWI: Modern vs traditional; 9. Woyessa 2013 ETH: Good vs dilapidated house, 10. de Beaudrap 2001 UGA: Brick walls and iron roof vs mud walls and thatched roof (OR adjusted for age, weight, socio-economic status, education, altitude, ITNs), 11. Osterbauer 2012 UGA: Modern (iron roof, burnt brick or cement walls and cement floor) vs traditional (OR adjusted for age, HIV-exposure, enrolment period, gender, mother's age, prophylaxis); 12. van der Hoek 2003 LKA: Modern (brick walls and permanent roof material) vs traditional (mud walls or thatched roof) (OR adjusted for age, gender, distance to stream, distance to cattle shed, coil use, ITNs, IRS); 13. Wanzirah 2015 UGA: Modern (cement, wood or metal wall; tiled or metal roof and closed eaves) vs traditional (OR adjusted for age, gender, study site, household wealth); 14. Wolff 2001 MWI: Modern vs traditional (OR adjusted for water source, occupation, education, malaria knowledge, waste disposal method)
Fig. 3 Meta-analysis of the association between modern housing and malaria infection. Pooled effects from random-effects meta-analyses for crude (1°1°1) and adjusted (1°1°2) results are shown. Studies are divided into sub-groups by study design. Error bars show 95 % CIs; df = degrees of freedom. 1. Al-Makhlafi 2011 YEM: Good vs poor house quality; 2. Barber 1935 GRC: Modern (tiled roof, ceiling) vs traditional (thatched roof, reed or no ceiling); 3. Butraporn 1935 THA: Permanent vs semi-permanent or temporary; 4. Dahesh 2009 EGY: Painted brick walls and cement ceilings vs mud walls and wood or mud ceilings; 5. de Alemida 2010 TLS: Complete vs incomplete house; 6. Osterbauer 2012 UGA: Modern (iron roof, burnt brick or cement walls and cement floor) vs traditional; 7. van der Hoek 2003 LKA: Modern (brick walls and permanent roof material) vs traditional (mud walls or thatched roof); 8. Wolff 2001 MWI: Modern vs traditional; 9. Woyessa 2013 ETH: Good vs dilapidated house, 10. de Beaudrap 2001 UGA: Brick walls and iron roof vs mud walls and thatched roof (OR adjusted for age, weight, socio-economic status, education, altitude, ITNs), 11. Osterbauer 2012 UGA: Modern (iron roof, burnt brick or cement walls and cement floor) vs traditional (OR adjusted for age, HIV-exposure, enrolment period, gender, mother's age, prophylaxis); 12. van der Hoek 2003 LKA: Modern (brick walls and permanent roof material) vs traditional (mud walls or thatched roof) (OR adjusted for age, gender, distance to stream, distance to cattle shed, coil use, ITNs, IRS); 13. Wanzirah 2015 UGA: Modern (cement, wood or metal wall; tiled or metal roof and closed eaves) vs traditional (OR adjusted for age, gender, study site, household wealth); 14. Wolff 2001 MWI: Modern vs traditional (OR adjusted for water source, occupation, education, malaria knowledge, waste disposal method)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Meta-analysis of the association between modern housing and clinical malaria. Pooled effects from random-effects meta-analyses for crude (1°2°1; 1°2°3) and adjusted (1°2°2; 1°2°4) results are shown. Studies are divided into sub-groups by study design. Error bars show 95 % CIs; df = degrees of freedom. 1. Danis-Lozano 2007 MEX: House constructed with non-perishable vs perishable materials; 2. Danis-Lozano 2007 MEX: House constructed with non-perishable vs perishable materials (OR adjusted for occupation, village); 3. Liu 2014 TZA: Highest quintile of housing index compared to lowest quintile (based on roof, wall and floor material and presence of ceiling, eaves, screening); 4. Peterson 2009a ETH: Medium or good vs poor house construction; 5. Peterson 2009b ETH: Good vs poor house construction; 6. Liu 2014 TZA: Highest quintile of housing index compared to lowest quintile (based on roof, wall and floor material and presence of ceiling, eaves, screening) (RR adjusted for age, mother's education, wealth index, prophylaxis, socio-economic status, urban site, intermittent preventive treatment in infants (IPTi) trial arm); 7. Peterson 2009b ETH: Good vs poor house construction (RR adjusted for ITNs, vegetation, temperature, rainfall, larval densities); 8. Wanzirah 2015 UGA: Modern (cement, wood or metal wall; tiled or metal roof and closed eaves) vs traditional (RR adjusted for age, gender, study site, household wealth)
Fig. 4 Meta-analysis of the association between modern housing and clinical malaria. Pooled effects from random-effects meta-analyses for crude (1°2°1; 1°2°3) and adjusted (1°2°2; 1°2°4) results are shown. Studies are divided into sub-groups by study design. Error bars show 95 % CIs; df = degrees of freedom. 1. Danis-Lozano 2007 MEX: House constructed with non-perishable vs perishable materials; 2. Danis-Lozano 2007 MEX: House constructed with non-perishable vs perishable materials (OR adjusted for occupation, village); 3. Liu 2014 TZA: Highest quintile of housing index compared to lowest quintile (based on roof, wall and floor material and presence of ceiling, eaves, screening); 4. Peterson 2009a ETH: Medium or good vs poor house construction; 5. Peterson 2009b ETH: Good vs poor house construction; 6. Liu 2014 TZA: Highest quintile of housing index compared to lowest quintile (based on roof, wall and floor material and presence of ceiling, eaves, screening) (RR adjusted for age, mother's education, wealth index, prophylaxis, socio-economic status, urban site, intermittent preventive treatment in infants (IPTi) trial arm); 7. Peterson 2009b ETH: Good vs poor house construction (RR adjusted for ITNs, vegetation, temperature, rainfall, larval densities); 8. Wanzirah 2015 UGA: Modern (cement, wood or metal wall; tiled or metal roof and closed eaves) vs traditional (RR adjusted for age, gender, study site, household wealth)CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Anderson L, Simpson D, Stephens M. Durable housing improvements to fight malaria transmission: Can we learn new strategies from past experience? Atlanta: Habitat for Humanity International Global Programs Department; 2014.
  2. UN-Habitat: State of African Cities 2010. Governance, inequalities and urban land markets. Nairobi: UN Habitat; 2010.
  3. RBM/UNDP. Multisectoral action framework for malaria. Geneva: Roll Back Malaria/United Nations Development Programme; 2013.
  4. Ippolito M, Tusting LS, Gosling R, Dorsey G, Lindsay SW. Malaria and housing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO, 2014: CRD42014009048.
  5. Cochrane Collaboration. Suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC reviews. Oxford: Cochrane Collaboration; 2013.
  6. ICF International. The DHS progam STATcompiler. Calverton: ICF International; 2015.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Tusting, L. S., Ippolito, M. M., Willey, B. A., Kleinschmidt, I., Dorsey, G., Gosling, R. D., & Lindsay, S. W.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Durham University (GB)
Corresponding author
Tusting, Lucy S
ORCID
Venue
Malaria Journal
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-06-09
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
209-209
ISSN
1475-2875 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12936-015-0724-1
PMC
PMC4460721
OpenAlex
W1542774706
Cited by
355
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 8
FWCI
4.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Malaria Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Homeland Security
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1053338)
  • Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development
  • Novartis Foundation
  • Leverhulme Trust
  • Department for International Development
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Science and Technology Directorate
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K012126/1)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (U19AI089674)
  • Fogarty International Center
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Malaria Research and Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mosquito-borne diseases and control
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban and Rural Development Challenges
Keywords
malaria, housing design, modern housing, traditional dwellings, house screening, malaria risk factors, parasite prevalence, clinical malaria incidence, eaves, socio-economic development
MeSH terms
Housing, Humans, Malaria, Mosquito Control, Incidence, Prevalence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review