Impact of 1,7-malaria reactive community-based testing and response (1,7-mRCTR) approach on malaria prevalence in Tanzania

Table 3 Effects of the 1,7-mRCTR approach on malaria prevalence and fever

	(1)	(2)
	All districts	Rufiji
Positive malaria test result, all age groups
Difference-in-differences coefficient estimate	− 0.045^***	− 0.046^**
	[− 0.067, − 0.023]	[− 0.081, − 0.011]
Change in comparison group	− 0.122^***	− 0.014
	[− 0.139, − 0.104]	[− 0.045, 0.017]
Observations	24,102	4926
Adjusted R²	0.1537	0.0367
Mean of comparison group at baseline	0.260	0.072
Villages	88	22
Self-reported fever in past 14 days, under five years of age
Difference-in-differences coefficient estimate	-0.047**	0.032
	[− 0.082, − 0.011]	[− 0.046, 0.110]
Change in comparison group	− 0.089***	− 0.098**
	[− 0.117, − 0.061]	[− 0.163, − 0.033]
Observations	5308	1092
Adjusted R²	0.0518	0.0489
Mean of comparison group at baseline	0.153	0.133
Villages	88	22
Body temperature of 38 ℃ or above, under 5 years of age
Difference-in-differences coefficient estimate	− 0.003	− 0.005
	[− 0.010, 0.005]	[− 0.013, 0.004]
Change in comparison group	− 0.004	− 0.000
	[− 0.010, 0.001]	[− 0.003, 0.003]
Observations	5271	1082
Adjusted R²	0.0011	0.0064
Mean of comparison group at baseline	0.006	0.000
Villages	88	22

95% confidence intervals in brackets
Linear probability models
Included village fixed effects and controlled for household characteristics (mosquito nets, flush toilet, improved source of drinking water, house ownership, health insurance) and individual member characteristics (age and sex)
The number of villages is 86 at baseline (instead of 88 as shown here) because of changes in administrative boundaries
Standard errors clustered at the household level
Data at household member level
1,7-mRCTR 1,7-malaria Reactive Community-Based Testing and Response
^*P < 0.05, ^**P < 0.01, ^***P < 0.001

ISSN: 2049-9957