Eave tubes for malaria control in Africa: a modelling assessment of potential impact on transmission
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Novel interventions for malaria control are necessary in the face of problems such as increasing insecticide resistance and residual malaria transmission. One way to assess performance prior to deployment in the field is through mathematical modelling. Modelled here are a range of potential outcomes for eave tubes, a novel mosquito control tool combining house screening and targeted use of insecticides to provide both physical protection and turn the house into a lethal mosquito killing device. METHODS: The effect of eave tubes was modelled by estimating the reduction of infectious mosquito bites relative to no intervention (a transmission metric defined as relative transmission potential, RTP). The model was used to assess how RTP varied with coverage when eave tubes were used as a stand-alone intervention, or in combination with either bed nets (LLINs) or indoor residual spraying (IRS). RESULTS: The model indicated the impact of eave tubes on transmission increases non-linearly as coverage increases, suggesting a community level benefit. For example, based on realistic assumptions, just 30 % coverage resulted in around 70 % reduction in overall RTP (i.e. there was a benefit for those houses without eave tubes). Increasing coverage to around 70 % reduced overall RTP by >90 %. Eave tubes exhibited some redundancy with existing interventions, such that combining interventions within properties did not give reductions in RTP equal to the sum of those provided by deploying each intervention singly. However, combining eave tubes and either LLINs or IRS could be extremely effective if the technologies were deployed in a non-overlapping way. CONCLUSION: Using predictive models to assess the benefit of new technologies has great value, and is especially pertinent prior to conducting expensive, large scale, randomized controlled trials. The current modelling study indicates eave tubes have considerable potential to impact malaria transmission if deployed at scale and can be used effectively with existing tools, especially if they are combined strategically with, for example, IRS and eave tubes targeting different houses.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
Eave tubes combined with screening of doors and windows reduce entry of mosquitoes.
“When combined with screening of doors and windows, preliminary evidence suggests that eave tubes reduce entry of mosquitoes and increase overnight mortality rate, leading to reduced transmission risk at both household and community levels [4–7].”
From Semi-field studies to better understand the impact of eave tubes on mosquito mortality and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as [7]
The Background (page unavailable) describes eave tubes as part of a package that screens windows and closes open eaves, and states that house screening reduces mosquito entry. It does not describe door screening as part of the eave-tube package, so the door-specific part of the claim is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredEave tubes combined with screening of doors and windows increase overnight mortality rate.
“When combined with screening of doors and windows, preliminary evidence suggests that eave tubes reduce entry of mosquitoes and increase overnight mortality rate, leading to reduced transmission risk at both household and community levels [4–7].”
From Semi-field studies to better understand the impact of eave tubes on mosquito mortality and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as [7]
The Background describes eave tubes as part of a package that screens windows and kills mosquitoes attempting to enter. The Results report higher mosquito mortality than in open-eave controls, but the cited copy does not specify overnight mortality or say that doors are screened. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredEave tubes combined with screening of doors and windows lead to reduced transmission risk at both household and community levels.
“When combined with screening of doors and windows, preliminary evidence suggests that eave tubes reduce entry of mosquitoes and increase overnight mortality rate, leading to reduced transmission risk at both household and community levels [4–7].”
From Semi-field studies to better understand the impact of eave tubes on mosquito mortality and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as [7]
The Background describes eave tubes as part of a package that includes screened windows and closed eaves, but does not say doors are screened. The Results report a modelled reduction in infectious bites in both protected and unprotected houses, supporting household and community benefits; they do not establish the claim for a package that also screens doors. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredInsecticide-treated tubes combined with screening of doors and windows reduce entry of mosquitoes.
“preliminary evidence suggests insecticide-treated tubes, combined with screening of doors and windows to make the house more ‘mosquito proof’, reduces entry of mosquitoes and increases overnight mortality rate, leading to reduced transmission risk at both household and community levels [14–17].”
From Semi-field evaluation of the cumulative effects of a "Lethal House Lure" on malaria mosquito mortality (2019) · cites this paper as [17]
The Background (page unavailable) says house screening can reduce mosquito entry and describes eave tubes as part of a package that includes screened windows and closed eaves. It does not describe screening doors as part of that eave-tube package, so the claim’s specific combination is not fully supported. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredInsecticide-treated tubes combined with screening of doors and windows increase overnight mortality rate.
“preliminary evidence suggests insecticide-treated tubes, combined with screening of doors and windows to make the house more ‘mosquito proof’, reduces entry of mosquitoes and increases overnight mortality rate, leading to reduced transmission risk at both household and community levels [14–17].”
From Semi-field evaluation of the cumulative effects of a "Lethal House Lure" on malaria mosquito mortality (2019) · cites this paper as [17]
The Background describes insecticide-treated eave tubes combined with window screening and closed eaves; the Results report increased mosquito mortality when mosquitoes attempt to enter and model reduced transmission. Our copy does not specify door screening or an overnight mortality rate, so those details are not supported. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Modelling studies suggest that the impact of deflection is likely to be offset if there is increased mortality rate when mosquitoes encounter houses with eave tubes (mass action effect provides community wide protection reducing transmission risk even for houses without the intervention).
“Modelling studies exploring the effects of different levels of coverage of screening + eave tubes suggest that the impact of deflection is likely to be offset if there is increased mortality rate when mosquitoes encounter houses with eave tubes (i.e., a mass action effect should provide community wide protection reducing transmission risk even for those houses without the intervention) [7].”
From Semi-field studies to better understand the impact of eave tubes on mosquito mortality and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as [7]
Modelling analysis indicates that such levels of additional mortality should have a marked impact on malaria transmission.
“Modelling analysis indicates that such levels of additional mortality should have a marked impact on malaria transmission [17].”
From Semi-field evaluation of the cumulative effects of a "Lethal House Lure" on malaria mosquito mortality (2019) · cites this paper as [17]
Such reductions lead to reduced transmission risk at household and community levels.
“preliminary evidence suggests insecticide-treated tubes, combined with screening of doors and windows to make the house more ‘mosquito proof’, reduces entry of mosquitoes and increases overnight mortality rate, leading to reduced transmission risk at both household and community levels [14–17].”
From Semi-field evaluation of the cumulative effects of a "Lethal House Lure" on malaria mosquito mortality (2019) · cites this paper as [17]
This mortality should contribute to community-level reduction in transmission assuming sufficient coverage of the intervention.
“This mortality should contribute to community-level reduction in transmission assuming sufficient coverage of the intervention.”
From Semi-field evaluation of the cumulative effects of a "Lethal House Lure" on malaria mosquito mortality (2019) · cites this paper as [17]
The effects are encouraging given evidence from modelling studies that indicate much lower coverage and lower mortality rates per feeding cycle can lead to marked impacts on malaria transmission potential.
“Nonetheless, the effects are encouraging given evidence from modelling studies that indicate much lower coverage and lower mortality rates per feeding cycle can lead to marked impacts on malaria transmission potential [17].”
From Semi-field evaluation of the cumulative effects of a "Lethal House Lure" on malaria mosquito mortality (2019) · cites this paper as [17]
Modelling outputs show community-wide benefits at a 70% SET coverage threshold.
“We used the 70% threshold on the basis of modelling outputs showing community-wide benefits at this threshold24 and to allow a balanced number of clusters on either side of the threshold.”
From Impact and cost-effectiveness of a lethal house lure against malaria transmission in central Côte d'Ivoire: a two-arm, cluster-randomised controlled trial (2021) · cites this paper as [24]
Numerous laboratory, semi-field, and modelling studies have been suggestive of the potential of SET.
“Numerous laboratory, semi-field, and modelling studies have been suggestive of the potential of SET,20, 21, 24, 27”
From Impact and cost-effectiveness of a lethal house lure against malaria transmission in central Côte d'Ivoire: a two-arm, cluster-randomised controlled trial (2021) · cites this paper as [24]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 25
- Authors
- Waite, J. L., Lynch, P. A., & Thomas, M. B.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- University of Exeter (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Waite, Jessica L.
- Venue
- Malaria Journal
- Published
- 2016-09-02
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 449-449
- ISSN
- 1475-2875 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5009529
- OpenAlex
- W2510028366
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6
- FWCI
- 6.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Malaria Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Seventh Framework Programme (BE) (306105, FP7-HEALTH-2012-INNOVATION-1)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Malaria Research and Control
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mosquito-borne diseases and control
- Keywords
- malaria transmission, mosquito control, house screening, insecticide-treated nets, indoor residual spraying, intervention coverage, combined intervention, insecticide resistance, residual malaria transmission
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Female, Malaria, Mosquito Control, Africa South of the Sahara, Disease Transmission, Infectious
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
