METHODS: Experimental and observational studies conducted in sub-Saharan Africa between 2000 and 2021 which had quantitatively evaluated the impact of health education interventions on malaria knowledge and ITN usage were included in the review.
RESULTS: A total of 11 studies (20,523 participants) were included. Four studies used educational interventions to teach appropriate ITN strategies and promote ITN usage. Two others focused on improving knowledge of malaria transmission, prevention, treatment, and its signs and symptoms. The remaining five studies assessed both ITN use and malaria knowledge. Of these, 10 were eligible for meta-analysis. On average, the odds of a person in the intervention group reporting better malaria knowledge (odds ratio 1.30, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.70, p = 0.05) and higher ITN usage (odds ratio 1.53, 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.29, p = 0.004) increased significantly after receiving health education interventions compared to those in the control group. The odds of ITN usage also substantially increased when the interventions were based on a theory or model (odds ratio 5.27, 95% CI: 3.24 to 8.58, p = 0.05).
DISCUSSION: Our review highlights sub-Saharan Africa's various health education strategies to curb malaria over the past two decades. Meta-analysis findings show that health education interventions are moderately effective in improving malaria knowledge and ITN usage and have contributed to the effort of global malaria strategy.
METHODS: We analyzed data from 91 seroprevalence surveys and sentinel surveillance among antenatal care clinic (ANC) attendees using model-based geostatistical methods to produce estimates of HIV prevalence across 43 countries in SSA, from years 2000 to 2018, at a 5 × 5-km resolution and presented among second administrative level (typically districts or counties) units.
RESULTS: We found substantial variation in HIV prevalence across localities, ages, and sexes that have been masked in earlier analyses. Within-country variation in prevalence in 2018 was a median 3.5 times greater across ages and sexes, compared to for all adults combined. We note large within-district prevalence differences between age groups: for men, 50% of districts displayed at least a 14-fold difference between age groups with the highest and lowest prevalence, and at least a 9-fold difference for women. Prevalence trends also varied over time; between 2000 and 2018, 70% of all districts saw a reduction in prevalence greater than five percentage points in at least one sex and age group. Meanwhile, over 30% of all districts saw at least a five percentage point prevalence increase in one or more sex and age group.
CONCLUSIONS: As the HIV epidemic persists and evolves in SSA, geographic and demographic shifts in prevention and treatment efforts are necessary. These estimates offer epidemiologically informative detail to better guide more targeted interventions, vital for combating HIV in SSA.
METHODS: This study used available under-five nutritional secondary data from the Demographic and Health Surveys performed in sub-Saharan African countries. The research used bagging, boosting, and voting algorithms, such as random forest, decision tree, eXtreme Gradient Boosting, and k-nearest neighbors machine learning methods, to generate the MVBHE model.
RESULTS: We evaluated the model performances in contrast to each other using different measures, including accuracy, precision, recall, and the F1 score. The results of the experiment showed that the MVBHE model (96%) was better at predicting malnutrition than the random forest (81%), decision tree (60%), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (79%), and k-nearest neighbors (74%).
CONCLUSIONS: The random forest algorithm demonstrated the highest prediction accuracy (81%) compared with the decision tree, eXtreme Gradient Boosting, and k-nearest neighbors algorithms. The accuracy was then enhanced to 96% using the MVBHE model. The MVBHE model is recommended by the present study as the best way to predict malnutrition in under-five children.
METHODS: This WHO-coordinated, prospective, observational cohort study was done at 279 clusters (villages or groups of villages in which phenotypic resistance was measurable) in Benin, Cameroon, India, Kenya, and Sudan. Pyrethroid long-lasting insecticidal nets were the principal form of malaria vector control in all study areas; in Sudan this approach was supplemented by indoor residual spraying. Cohorts of children from randomly selected households in each cluster were recruited and followed up by community health workers to measure incidence of clinical malaria and prevalence of infection. Mosquitoes were assessed for susceptibility to pyrethroids using the standard WHO bioassay test. Country-specific results were combined using meta-analysis.
FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2012, and Nov 4, 2016, 40 000 children were enrolled and assessed for clinical incidence during 1·4 million follow-up visits. 80 000 mosquitoes were assessed for insecticide resistance. Long-lasting insecticidal net users had lower infection prevalence (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·63, 95% CI 0·51-0·78) and disease incidence (adjusted rate ratio [RR] 0·62, 0·41-0·94) than did non-users across a range of resistance levels. We found no evidence of an association between insecticide resistance and infection prevalence (adjusted OR 0·86, 0·70-1·06) or incidence (adjusted RR 0·89, 0·72-1·10). Users of nets, although significantly better protected than non-users, were nevertheless subject to high malaria infection risk (ranging from an average incidence in net users of 0·023, [95% CI 0·016-0·033] per person-year in India, to 0·80 [0·65-0·97] per person year in Kenya; and an average infection prevalence in net users of 0·8% [0·5-1·3] in India to an average infection prevalence of 50·8% [43·4-58·2] in Benin).
INTERPRETATION: Irrespective of resistance, populations in malaria endemic areas should continue to use long-lasting insecticidal nets to reduce their risk of infection. As nets provide only partial protection, the development of additional vector control tools should be prioritised to reduce the unacceptably high malaria burden.
FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, UK Medical Research Council, and UK Department for International Development.