OBJECTIVES: To examine whether housing interventions were effective in reducing mosquito densities in homes and the impact on the incidence of mosquito-borne diseases.
METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched 16 online databases, including NIH PubMed, CINAHL Complete, LILACS, Ovid MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized trials published from database inception to June 30, 2020. The primary outcome was the incidence of any mosquito-borne diseases. Secondary outcomes encompassed entomological indicators of the disease transmission. I2 values were used to explore heterogeneity between studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to assess the primary and secondary outcomes, with sub-group analyses for type of interventions on home environment, study settings (rural, urban, or mixed), and overall house type (traditional or modern housing).
RESULTS: The literature search yielded 4,869 articles. After screening, 18 studies were included in the qualitative review, of which nine were included in the meta-analysis. The studies enrolled 7,200 households in Africa and South America, reporting on malaria or dengue only. The type of home environmental interventions included modification to ceilings and ribbons to close eaves, screening doors and windows with nets, insecticide-treated wall linings in homes, nettings over gables and eaves openings, mosquito trapping systems, metal-roofed houses with mosquito screening, gable windows and closed eaves, and prototype houses using southeast Asian designs. Pooled analysis depicted a lower risk of mosquito-borne diseases in the housing intervention group (OR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.48 to 0.95; P = 0.03). Subgroup analysis depicted housing intervention reduced the risk of malaria in all settings (OR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.39 to 1.01; P = 0.05). In urban environment, housing intervention was found to decrease the risk of both malaria and dengue infections (OR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.99; P = 0.05).Meta-analysis of pooled odds ratio showed a significant benefit of improved housing in reducing indoor vector densities of both Aedes and Anopheles (OR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.54; P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Housing intervention could reduce transmission of malaria and dengue among people living in the homes. Future research should evaluate the protective effect of specific house features and housing improvements associated with urban development.
CONTENT: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of home environmental interventions for preventing respiratory tract infections. Ten electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials published from inception to July 31, 2020. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to assess the study outcomes. Our search identified 14 eligible studies across 12 countries, which comprised 87,428 households in total. The type of interventions on home environment included kitchen appliance and design, water supply and sanitation, house insulation, and home heating. Meta-analysis indicated a potential benefit of home environmental interventions in preventing overall respiratory tract infections (Absolute RR=0.89, 95% CI=0.78-1.01, p=0.07; Pooled adjusted RR=0.72, 95% CI=0.63-0.84, p<0.0001). Subgroup analyses depicted that home environmental interventions had no significant impact on lower respiratory tract infections, pneumonia, and severe pneumonia. A protective effect against respiratory infections was observed in high income country setting (RR=0.82, 95% CI=0.78-0.87, p<0.00001).
SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK: Home environmental interventions have the potential to reduce morbidity of respiratory tract infections. The lack of significant impact from stand-alone housing interventions suggests that multicomponent interventions should be implemented in tandem with high-quality health systems.