Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Malaria Journal and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research

Window screening, ceilings and closed eaves as sustainable ways to control malaria in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Sheila B Ogoma12*, Khadija Kannady3, Maggy Sikulu12, Prosper P Chaki245, Nicodem J Govella245, Wolfgang R Mukabana1 and Gerry F Killeen245

Author Affiliations

1 University of Nairobi, School of Biological Sciences, PO Box 30197-00100 GPO Nairobi, Kenya

2 Ifakara Health Institute, Coordination Office, PO Box 78373, Kiko Avenue, Mikocheni, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania

3 Dar es Salaam City Council, Ministry of Regional Administration and Local Government, United Republic of Tanzania

4 Durham University, School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK

5 Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Vector Group, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK

For all author emails, please log on.

Malaria Journal 2009, 8:221  doi:10.1186/1475-2875-8-221

Published: 29 September 2009

Abstract

Background

Malaria transmission in Africa occurs predominantly inside houses where the primary vectors prefer to feed. Human preference and investment in blocking of specific entry points for mosquitoes into houses was evaluated and compared with known entry point preferences of the mosquitoes themselves.

Methods

Cross-sectional household surveys were conducted in urban Dar es Salaam, Tanzania to estimate usage levels of available options for house proofing against mosquito entry, namely window screens, ceilings and blocking of eaves. These surveys also enabled evaluation of household expenditure on screens and ceilings and the motivation behind their installation.

Results

Over three quarters (82.8%) of the 579 houses surveyed in Dar es Salaam had window screens, while almost half (48.9%) had ceilings. Prevention of mosquito entry was cited as a reason for installation of window screens and ceilings by 91.4% (394/431) and 55.7% (127/228) of respondents, respectively, but prevention of malaria was rarely cited (4.3%, 22/508). The median cost of window screens was between US $ 21-30 while that of ceilings was between US $301-400. The market value of insecticide-treated nets, window screening and ceilings currently in use in the city was estimated as 2, 5 and 42 million US$. More than three quarters of the respondents that lacked them said it was too expensive to install ceilings (82.2%) or window screens (75.5%).

Conclusion

High coverage and spending on screens and ceilings implies that these techniques are highly acceptable and excellent uptake can be achieved in urban settings like Dar es Salaam. Effective models for promotion and subsidization should be developed and evaluated, particularly for installation of ceilings that prevent entry via the eaves, which are the most important entry point for mosquitoes that cause malaria, a variety of neglected tropical diseases and the nuisance which motivates uptake.