Factors facilitating pest infestation in two low-income urban areas of Cape Town, South Africa : an urban health observation study

High pest burdens in low-income urban areas pose a significant public health threat to residents due to pest-induced diseases and other negative health consequences. Furthermore, pests can also be a source of nuisance and social stigma. To ward off pests and the problems they are associated with, many residents of socioeconomically disadvantaged urban areas frequently use pesticides, including highly toxic illegal pesticides. Inappropriate and indiscriminate use of pesticide is a concern since pesticide exposures can put residents, especially children, at risk for negative health effects. While pesticide use and exposures are common in many low socioeconomic urban areas globally, pesticide-induced adverse health effects are of particular concern in developing countries, such as South Africa, where pesticide regulations and enforcement thereof is often lacking. Following the alarming rise in number of children hospitalized with pesticide poisoning in the Cape Town surrounds, researchers at the University of Cape Town conducted a study whose aim was to identify common in-home pests, pesticide use and exposure patterns, and pesticide risk perceptions in Khayelitsha and Philippi, two low socioeconomic communities of Cape Town. This study was part of the larger project and was focused on investigating factors that contribute to pest infestation in low socioeconomic urban areas. An analysis of qualitative data that examined factors in housing, environment and practices and pest control behaviours of poor urban residents that facilitate pest infestation is presented in this mini-dissertation. The protocol (Part A) describes the study population and the methods used to collect and analyse the data. The structured literature review (Part B) describes the double health burden from pests and pesticide exposure faced by low-income urban residents. It also discusses the poverty-related factors that contribute to pest infestations in impoverished urban areas. Lastly, it critically evaluates research on alternative non-toxic pest control methods relevant for low socioeconomic urban communities

Effectiveness and safety of reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA) using dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine to reduce malaria transmission in the very low-endemic setting of Eswatini: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION: To reduce malaria transmission in very low-endemic settings, screening and treatment near index cases (reactive case detection (RACD)), is widely practised, but the rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) used miss low-density infections. Reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA) may be safe and more effective. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in Eswatini, a very low-endemic setting. 77 clusters were randomised to rfMDA using dihydroartemisin–piperaquine (DP) or RACD involving RDTs and artemether–lumefantrine. Interventions were delivered by the local programme. An intention-to-treat analysis was used to compare cluster-level cumulative confirmed malaria incidence among clusters with cases. Secondary outcomes included safety and adherence. RESULTS: From September 2015 to August 2017, 222 index cases from 47 clusters triggered 46 RACD events and 64 rfMDA events. RACD and rfMDA were delivered to 1455 and 1776 individuals, respectively. Index case coverage was 69.5% and 62.4% for RACD and rfMDA, respectively. Adherence to DP was 98.7%. No serious adverse events occurred. For rfMDA versus RACD, cumulative incidences (per 1000 person-years) of all malaria were 2.11 (95% CI 1.73 to 2.59) and 1.97 (95% CI 1.57 to 2.47), respectively; and of locally acquired malaria, they were 1.29 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.67) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.34), respectively. Adjusting for imbalance in baseline incidence, incidence rate ratio for rfMDA versus RACD was 0.93 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.62) for all malaria and 0.84 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.66) for locally acquired malaria. Similar results were obtained in a per-protocol analysis that excluded clusters with <80% index case coverage. CONCLUSION: In a very low-endemic, real-world setting, rfMDA using DP was safe, but did not lower incidence compared with RACD, potentially due to insufficient coverage and/or power. To assess impact of interventions in very low-endemic settings, improved coverage, complementary interventions and adaptive ring trial designs may be needed. Trial registration number: NCT02315690

"We were afraid of the lion that has roared next to us"; community response to reactive focal mass drug administration for malaria in Eswatini (formerly Swaziland).

BackgroundReactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA), or presumptive treatment without malaria testing of household members and neighbours of a passively identified malaria case, is currently being explored as a possible malaria elimination strategy in low transmission settings. One of the primary factors determining the effectiveness of rfMDA on reducing or interrupting transmission is achieving high coverage of the target population with drug administration. This study aims to explore the acceptability of rfMDA and identify facilitators and barriers to its potential implementation, as well as the community's general knowledge, attitudes and beliefs with regard to malaria elimination.MethodsA qualitative study was performed using focus group discussions (FGDs) among villagers that received rfMDA through the National Malaria Control Programme in the low transmission setting of Eswatini as part of a 2-year clinical trial. FGDs were audio-recorded, transcribed and translated into English. All transcripts were managed in Dedoose and underwent qualitative content analysis.ResultsThe majority of participants perceived their community to be at high risk of malaria. Witnessing others in their community suffer from malaria, proximity to Mozambique, various ecological factors, and the presence of mosquitoes contributed to this perception. The greatest motivator of participation in rfMDA was witnessing someone else suffer from malaria, since most participants had not personally experienced malaria themselves. Participants valued the education on rfMDA and on malaria in general, particularly when communicated by nurses and other health workers from the Ministry of Health. Participants were overwhelmingly motivated to participate in rfMDA in order to obtain protection from malaria. Most participants did not understand the concept of sub-clinical infection and, therefore, did not perceive the anti-malarial medication given in rfMDA to be a treatment medication.ConclusionsPerceived risk for malaria was a major driver of acceptability; therefore, future intervention campaigns could aim to better quantify risk to inform interventions and encourage uptake. There were misunderstandings about the asymptomatic reservoir of parasites in humans. Given that this phenomenon is the rationale for rfMDA, this misunderstanding could threaten the uptake of the intervention if it persists in the community. Using local authorities to deliver messaging, additional education on this concept with re-inforcement that risk of malaria is ongoing, even in the absence of frequent cases, may help to maximize and maintain acceptability