Outdoors
malaria
MALARIA
The biting density of primary malaria vectors in the outdoor area per house-night was estimated as 23.0 (95% HDI: 12.9 to 35.1) female Mean outdoor and indoor mosquito densities as measured by human landing catches (HLC) and light traps, respectively, and corresponding relative changes due to the interventions.All results are expressed as the mean and 95% highest density credible interval (HDI) of the posterior distribution of the outcome, with interval estimates (HDIs) corresponding to an average house and an average week. A relative change has 95% credibility if its HDI excludes 0% (unity). Both, an intervention mean mosquito density whose 95% HDI is lower than and does not widely overlap with the corresponding control HDI, and a positive protective efficacy (negative relative change) with 95% credibility, is highlighted in bold. A negative protective efficacy (positive relative change) with 95% credibility is highlighted in italics. For example, outdoors, the mean Culex density under the push intervention (95% HDI (13.4,26.2)) was lower than the control mean Culex density (95% HDI (32.3,61.6)) with 95% credibility, and the push had a positive protective efficacy with 95% credibility (the 95% HDI (-65.9%, -50.2%) excludes 0%). As it is a relative measure, protective efficacy may well show an effect with 95% credibility (95% HDI excludes unity), even if the corresponding HDIs for the intervention and control mean mosquito densities do overlap. Thus, on the basis of 95% credibility, the mean Mansonia density under the push intervention (95% HDI (3.5,7.6)) was not completely separated from the control mean Mansonia density (95% HDI (6.8,14.5)), but the push still had a positive protective efficacy with 95% credibility for Mansonia (the 95% HDI (− 59.9%, − 34.5%) excludes 0%).Contrary to the impact on malaria vectors, both the ‘push’ and the ‘push–pull’ had a strong and comparable protective efficacy reducing biting densities of 