ABSTRACT
Introduction Improved housing has been shown to reduce the risk of malaria infections compared to traditional houses; however, it is unclear if the effects differ in different malaria transmission settings. This study evaluated the effects of improved housing on malaria transmission among different endemic areas.
Methods and Analysis Electronic databases, clinical trial registries and grey literature were searched for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and cross-sectional surveys on housing done between 1987 and 2022. Forest plots were done, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluation Framework.
Findings Twenty-two studies were included; twelve were cross-sectional, four were case-control, four were cohort studies and two were RCTs. RCTs indicated that modern houses did not protect against malaria compared to traditional houses. Cohort studies showed an adjusted risk ratio of 0.68 (95% CI 0.48 – 0.96) and Cross-sectional studies indicated an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.47 (95% CI 0.31 – 0.72). By endemic transmission regions, the adjusted odds ratio in the high endemic was 0.43 (95% CI 0.29 – 0.63); in the moderate transmission regions, aOR = 0.91 (95% CI 0.91 – 1.07) and in the low transmission settings, aOR = 0.42 (95% CI 0.26 – 0.66).
Conclusion The evidence from observational studies suggests that the risk reduction associated with modern housing is comparable or higher in low malaria transmission settings compared to high transmission settings. Evidence from RCTs in high-transmission settings shows that house improvements may induce risky behaviours such as staying outside for longer hours.
Key Messages
It is known that improved housing reduces the risk of malaria compared to traditional housing; however, the effects of improved housing in different endemic settings are unclear.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time a systematic review and meta-analysis has stratified the effect measures of improved housing on malaria transmission in different transmission settings.
Our study found no literature from high-quality research designs such as RCTs and Cohort studies on improved housing in low and moderate transmission settings. We call on researchers and funders to conduct and support high-quality research designs in low and moderate-transmission areas, especially in Africa, as more countries are reducing their malaria burdens due to increased interventions. This will help to achieve and sustain malaria elimination.
Piecemeal improvements, such as closing eaves, screening and iron roofing, are not necessarily associated with a reduced risk of malaria. They may induce risky behaviours due to poor ventilation and higher indoor temperatures resulting in residents staying longer outside thus exposing themselves to infective mosquito bites.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Scientific databases and the internet sources such as PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos