Impact of Screening and EaveTubes (SET) on infection prevalence measured by RDT
infection, malaria infection, Infection
INFECTION, HAND INFECTION, INFECTION
Infection prevalence was lower in the intervention arm (36.7%) compared to the control arm (50.4%), with 43% lower odds of infection in the SET arm compared to the control arm (odds ratio (OR) 0.57 (0.45–0.71), Infection prevalence in each cluster (open circles) by intervention arm. The mean of the cluster results and 95% confidence intervals are shown in the diamondsImpact of intervention on infection prevalence (measured using RDT)In the intervention clusters, there was a reduction in malaria infection prevalence for all age groups compared to those living in control clusters. Individuals reporting sleeping under a net the night before had lower infection prevalence in both arms. There was no evidence for an interaction between intervention arm and bed net use, suggesting that the benefit of living in a SET village was additional (not multiplicative) to the protection conferred by a bed net. However, individuals living in SET villages but not using a bed net had lower prevalence (42.8%) than those using a net in control villages (47.5%) with the biggest difference between those living in control villages and not using a net (60.2%) and those living in SET villages and using a net (33.8%).Due to the range of coverage of SET in the intervention clusters (32% to 100% of households), we assessed the impact of intervention coverage on malaria infection prevalence. Seven clusters had SET coverage of 70% or lower. At baseline, infection prevalence in the 7 lower coverage clusters was similar to infection prevalence in the 14 clusters which had > 70% coverage (infection prevalence of 72.3% (95% CI: 53.7–95.5) in clusters with coverage ≤ 70% and infection prevalence of 70.7% (95% CI: 48.4–88.5) in clusters with > 70% coverage). In the endline survey, clusters with ≤ 70% coverage had a mean infection prevalence of 43.4% (95% CI: 32.9–52.1) compared to a prevalence of 33.0% (95% CI: 23.7–56.3) in the clusters with coverage > 70%, suggesting a stronger effect of the intervention when coverage was higher. However, when comparing the lower coverage clusters to the control clusters, there was still evidence for a drop in prevalence in the lower coverage villages (OR 0.76 (95% CI: 0.60–0.95), Thirty-five (25%) of the households (297 individuals) sampled in the intervention arm did not have SET. Individuals living in these houses had comparable infection prevalence (37.4%) to those who did have the intervention (36.5%). When compared to individuals living in control villages, the impact of living in a SET cluster for those households without SET (OR 0.57 (0.40–0.83), 