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

Table 5 Effects of the 1,7-mRCTR approach by treatment intensity

	(1)	(2)
	All districts	Rufiji
Panel A: one additional treatment round
Intervention # Endline # Treatment round	− 0.001	− 0.004
	[− 0.004, 0.002]	[− 0.009, 0.000]
Intervention # Endline	− 0.040^**	− 0.018
	[− 0.067, − 0.013]	[− 0.061, 0.025]
Change in comparison group	− 0.122^***	− 0.014
	[− 0.139, − 0.104]	[− 0.045, 0.017]
Observations	24,102	4926
Adjusted R²	0.1534	0.0377
Mean of comparison group at baseline	0.267	0.081
Panel B: High treatment intensity
Intervention # Endline # Highly treated	0.024	− 0.002
	[− 0.004, 0.051]	[− 0.036, 0.033]
Intervention # Endline	− 0.056^***	− 0.045^*
	[− 0.082, − 0.031]	[− 0.085, − 0.005]
Change in comparison group	− 0.122^***	− 0.014
	[− 0.139, − 0.104]	[− 0.045, 0.017]
Observations	24,102	4926
Adjusted R²	0.1538	0.0365
Mean of comparison group at baseline	0.260	0.072

95% confidence intervals in brackets
A village is defined as highly treated if it was treated more than four times (the median of intervention villages)
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)
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