Impact of community piped water coverage on re-infection with urogenital schistosomiasis in rural South Africa
Abstract
Previously, we demonstrated that high coverage of piped water in the seven years preceding a parasitological survey was strongly predictive of Schistosomiasis haematobium infection in a nested cohort of 1,976 primary school children [1]. Here, we report on the prospective follow up of infected members of this nested cohort (N=333) for two successive rounds following treatment. Using a negative binomial regression fitted to egg count data, we found that every percentage point increase in piped water coverage was associated with 4.4% decline in intensity of re-infection (incidence rate ratio = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.93-0.98, P= 0.002) among the treated children. We therefore provide further compelling evidence in support of the scaleup of piped water as an effective control strategy against Schistosomiasis haematobium transmission.
Data availability
Data that support the findings presented in this manuscript are available from the African Health Research data repository upon request and agreeing to AHRI's terms and conditions for use. The datasets used here include homestead-level coordinates as an essential component and these data are personally identifiable. Request to access the data can be made through the AHRI's institutional website (https://www.ahri.org/research/#research-department) and by email to AHRI's data department (ITservicedesk@ahri.org).
Article and author information
Author details
Funding
National Institutes of Health
- Christopher Appleton
- Frank Tanser
Wellcome
- Frank Tanser
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Reviewing Editor
- Eduardo Franco, McGill University, Canada
Ethics
Human subjects: Ethical approval was provided by the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of the university of KwaZulu-Natal (reference #E165/05). Written informed consent was sought from parents or guardians of the participating children for both rounds of follow-up in 2007 and 2008 and assent obtained from the children during the follow-up surveys.
Version history
- Received: November 29, 2019
- Accepted: March 10, 2020
- Accepted Manuscript published: March 17, 2020 (version 1)
- Version of Record published: March 31, 2020 (version 2)
Copyright
© 2020, Mogeni et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 1,045
- views
-
- 106
- downloads
-
- 8
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Further reading
-
- Medicine
- Microbiology and Infectious Disease
- Epidemiology and Global Health
- Immunology and Inflammation
eLife has published articles on a wide range of infectious diseases, including COVID-19, influenza, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, malaria and typhoid fever.
-
- Epidemiology and Global Health
We discuss 12 misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes concerning the use of covariates in observational or nonrandomized research. Additionally, we offer advice to help investigators, editors, reviewers, and readers make more informed decisions about conducting and interpreting research where the influence of covariates may be at issue. We primarily address misperceptions in the context of statistical management of the covariates through various forms of modeling, although we also emphasize design and model or variable selection. Other approaches to addressing the effects of covariates, including matching, have logical extensions from what we discuss here but are not dwelled upon heavily. The misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes we discuss include accurate representation of covariates, effects of measurement error, overreliance on covariate categorization, underestimation of power loss when controlling for covariates, misinterpretation of significance in statistical models, and misconceptions about confounding variables, selecting on a collider, and p value interpretations in covariate-inclusive analyses. This condensed overview serves to correct common errors and improve research quality in general and in nutrition research specifically.