Factors associated with malaria prevalence in areas where indoor residual spraying is conducted in Lufwanyama

Abstract

The morbidity caused by Malaria is most commonly associated with some factors, mostly Geographical, Environmental, Housing Structures and cultural perspectives of people regarding the intervention in place. Control programs targeting malaria are intended to reduce its extent over time. The study aimed at determining factors associated with Malaria Prevalence in areas where Indoor Residual Spraying is conducted in Lufwanyama District.The study was a retrospective cross-sectional study and utilized quantitative research methods. The population for the study was all households sprayed in Lufwanyama. Structured Interview questionnaires were used to collect data. Systematic Probability Sampling methods was used to select respondents in the IRS cluster areas and validation of findings was set at 95% CI with a P-value<0.05. The study showed an inverse association between sprayed households and episodes of malaria in the 390 houses sampled. Of the 355 households that experienced malaria, 72.68% (n=258)came from sprayed households and only 27.32% (n=97) came from non-sprayed households(P-value<0.022). Houses whose land is under vegetation showed 85.5% (n=318) of malaria cases, while those that kept Livestock recorded 26.2% (n=102) of malaria cases (P-value <0.012). The study also shows that out of the 390 sampled, only 5.9%(n=23) participated in IRS activities and 357 (94.10%) percent did not participate.Participation could be linked to preventive methods chosen by the community where, the majority indicated that ITNs (48%) were the best method of preventing malaria, while only 23% preferred IRS.Any strategy for controlling malaria vectors in Lufwanyama or indeed all pastoral areas in Zambia should take into account the heterogeneity of the vector for better control measure choices and implementation. Also it is very important to invest in as many research to tackle Vector behaviour in Lufwanyama.Authorities in the Ministry of Health, National Malaria Control and other stakeholders may wish to look at contribution of IRS to malaria. Malaria control through IRS should be perceived by the beneficiaries with good intent but if the beneficiaries are not engaged, other interventions such as insecticide treated nets (ITNs) will always be favoured over IRS. Hence, there is need to redefine the community sensitization approaches in order to make IRS a genuinely participative, acceptable and well perceived intervention. Community sensitization can be in many folds; improving household structures, creating habitable environments and geographical conditions that favour lasting efficacy of the DDTs. Not addressing this issue would render IRS an annual routine academic exercise.