Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Dec 1;20(12):e0336022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0336022

Exploring spatial variation and multilevel modeling of malaria prevalence among children aged 6-59 months based on RDT in Niger: Insights for public health decision-making

Solomon Sisay Mulugeta 1, Bezanesh Melese Masresha 2,*, Legesse Alamerie Ejigu 1
Editor: Luzia H Carvalho3
PMCID: PMC12668621  PMID: 41325497

Abstract

Background: Malaria is a life-threatening infectious disease caused by parasites of the genus Plasmodium transmitted through the bite of infected female Anopheles mosquitoes, which act as vectors of the disease. It affects approximately 219 million people globally and results in 435,000 deaths each year. Fever, chills, and exhaustion are among of the signs of this illness. If left untreated, these symptoms can develop into serious problems like anemia, respiratory distress, and even organ failure. By identifying determinants related to malaria prevalence, this study supports evidence-based national malaria prevention and control initiatives. The results help improve decision-making for malaria control efforts and guide focused public health initiatives by identifying areas with a high malaria burden.

Methods: Data from the 2021 Niger Malaria Indicator Survey (NMIS) is used, focusing on RDT-confirmed malaria cases in children aged 6-59 months. The dataset includes individual, household, and community-level variables, such as age, household income, education, healthcare access, and geographic coordinates. Spatial distribution of malaria prevalence is first visualized through maps and hot spot analysis to identify areas with high and low malaria rates. Random effects are incorporated to capture unobserved heterogeneity between regions and communities, allowing for more accurate estimates of malaria prevalence by adjusting for spatial clustering. Multilevel logistic regression models are applied to account for the hierarchical structure of the data. Model fit is evaluated using standard criteria (AIC, BIC and DIC), and diagnostics are performed to ensure reliability.

Results: 1121 (23.7%) of the 4724 children aged 6 to 59 months who were examined had positive RDT results for malaria. Malaria prevalence in Niger among children aged 6–59 months is significantly clustered (Moran′s I = 0.434, p < 0.001), revealing distinct hotspots and cold spots unlikely due to chance. Model III provides a better fit for RDT prevalence among children aged 6-59 months with malaria, as indicated by the smallest AIC, BIC, and deviation statistics compared to other reduced models. Malaria prevalence was associated with factors, including child age, anemia levels, maternal education, the number of children sleeping under bed nets, the use of insecticide-treated nets, the number of children aged 5 and under, as well as residence and region.

Conclusion: The findings show that malaria prevalence among children aged 6-59 months in Niger is significantly influenced by factors such as child age, anemia levels, maternal education, and bed net usage, emphasizing the need for improved coverage of insecticide-treated nets and tailored interventions based on local conditions.

Introduction

Malaria remains one of the great infectious killers in Africa. An estimated 300 to 500 million cases occur each year, causing 1.5 to 2.7 million deaths, primarily in children under the age of 5 years [16]. Malaria is a mosquito-transmitted infection spread by female Anopheles mosquitoes, which acts as a vector, through a bite from an infected mosquito and that affects 219 million people and causes 435 thousand deaths worldwide [20].

More than a century of international efforts and research have been made to improve malaria prevention, diagnosis, and treatment, but this high burden of disease still persists [21]. In its Global Technical Strategy for Malaria 2016-2030 (GTS), the WHO established a target in 2015 to lower the global malaria burden by 90% by 2030 in order to move closer to eradicating malaria. Nations that have already eradicated malaria must keep their status as malaria-free by preventing its reestablishment. To achieve this goal, nations must work to minimize transmission and accomplish national elimination goals within their individual countries [22].

Worldwide, approximately 2.1 billion illnesses and 11.7 million deaths were prevented between 2000 and 2022. The WHO African Region accounted for 82% of prevented cases and 94% of deaths. 233 million malaria cases were recorded by the WHO African Region in 2022, compared to 234 million in 2021. In 2022, three countries in the African Region, namely Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Uganda, experienced significant increases in malaria cases. These countries accounted for a combined increase of 1.3 million cases in Ethiopia and Nigeria, and 597,000 cases in Uganda.

The WHO African Region witnessed a high burden of malaria, with 95% of all malaria deaths (580,000) occurring in 2022. This is compared to 593,000 deaths in 2021. Regarding the “High burden to high impact” (HBHI) countries, including Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Uganda, and the United Republic of Tanzania, case numbers have mostly stabilized since the pandemic. The number of deaths in these countries is returning to levels seen in 2019. In 2022, these 11 countries reported 167 million cases (67% of the global total) and 426,000 deaths (73% of the global total), similar to the 166 million cases and 430,000 deaths reported in 2021.

Young children, lacking partial immunity, are particularly vulnerable and account for most malaria deaths in the WHO African Region. Malaria remains a significant public health challenge, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where it accounts for substantial morbidity and mortality among children. Niger is one of the countries heavily burdened by malaria, with children under five are particularly high risk due to their developing immune systems. Monitoring malaria prevalence in this vulnerable age group is essential for targeting interventions and reducing disease burden.

The use of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) has become a critical tool for malaria diagnosis, particularly in resource-limited settings like Niger. RDTs provide timely and accessible diagnostic results, enabling better monitoring and response to malaria outbreaks. However, understanding the spatial distribution of malaria and associated risk factors within the country is also essential, as prevalence rates can vary significantly between different regions due to factors like climate, access to healthcare, and socioeconomic conditions.

This study utilizes data from the 2023 Niger Malaria Indicator Survey (NMIS) to investigate the spatial variation of malaria prevalence among children aged 6-59 months. By applying multilevel modeling techniques, we aim to uncover key regional and individual-level factors associated with malaria prevalence, providing insights that can help guide targeted interventions. The findings from this research will contribute to a deeper understanding of malaria’s spatial patterns in Niger and support public health efforts to tailor malaria control strategies to specific areas with the highest burden.

Method of data analysis

Study area and source of data

Niger is a landlocked country in West Africa, comprising seven regions and a capital district, with a population of approximately 23.6 million in 2021. Over 80% of its territory is covered by the Sahara Desert, resulting in an arid to semi-arid climate with annual rainfall of 100 to 700 mm. The country experiences a long dry season from October to May and a brief, irregular rainy season from June to September, which significantly affects the density and distribution of malaria vectors [10,23].

The data for this study were collected using Niger Malaria Indicator Survey (NMIS). The researchers accessed the official database of the DHS program, which is available at the website https://dhsprogram.com/. To obtain permission to use the data sets, the researchers completed online registration and application processes. During the data collection process, geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude) were recorded at the Enumeration Areas (EAs) or cluster level or clusters. This information allows for the spatial analysis and mapping of the data.

Data management:

For data management and analysis, several software packages were utilized. Descriptive and summary statistics were generated using Stata v14, ArcGIS V.10.8, and SaTScan V.9.6 were employed for the analysis. These software tools provide capabilities for statistical analysis, geographic information system (GIS) mapping, and spatial cluster detection.

Ethical considerations:

The data is downloaded from the 2021 Niger Malaria Indicator Survey (NMIS) and accessed the official database of the DHS program, which is available at the website https://dhsprogram.com/. After filling out a brief registration form, we were able to access the dataset and write the stud′s title and significance on the website. With the help of ICF International, the datasets were downloaded using the above accessible website. Data were only downloaded for this study. Without EDHS’ permission,the dataset was not shared with other researchers. There was no requirement to identify any household or individual respondents interviewed in the DHS because the data were treated confidentially.

Variables in the study

Dependent variable.

Malaria infection status among children aged 6-59 months, this variable is measured based on the results of the Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDT) for malaria.

Independent variables.

The Geo-statistical model utilized individual and community-level variables (Table 1).

Table 1. Depiction of covariates that were incorporated for the study.
No. variable categories
1. Child Sex 1=male, 2=female
2. Child age(in month) 1=6-12, 2=13-24,
3=25-37, 4=38-50
5=50-59
3. Region R1=Agadez, R2=Diffa
R3=Dosso, R4=Maradi,
R5=Tahoua, R6=Tillaberi,
R7=Zinder, R8=Niamey
4. Residence 1=Urban, 2=Rural
5. Anemia level 1=Anemic, 2=Non Anemic
6. Mother education level 1=No education
2=Primary
3=Secondary and above
7. Wealth index 1=Poorest, 2=Poor,
3=Middle, 4=Rich
5=Richest
8. Has mosquito bed nets for sleeping 1=No, 2=Yes
9. Number of children Slept 1=Null, 2=1-3,
under bed net last night 3=4-6
10. Number of children UN5 1=None, 2=All Children
Slept under bed net last night 3=Somme Children, 4=No Bed Net
11. Insecticide-Treated Net (ITN) 1=Only Treated, 2=Both
3=Not treated, 4=Did not sleep under a net
12. Number children 5 and under 1=0-2, 2=3-5
3=6-8
13. Number of room for sleeping 1=1-3, 2=4-6
3=Above 7

Selection bias and sample representativeness.

To minimize selection bias and maintain representativeness, sampling weights were applied, and all analyses accounted for the survey′s complex design using primary sampling units and stratification variables.

Methods

Spatial autocorrelation and hot spot analysis.

Spatial autocorrelation, assessed through Global Moran’s I, was used to examine the spatial heterogeneity. Moran’s I values close to –1 indicated dispersion, while values close to +1 indicated clustering, and values around 0 suggested random distribution. A significant Moran’s I value (p < 0.05) rejected the null hypothesis, indicating the presence of spatial autocorrelation [3]. Incremental spatial autocorrelation helped identify the distance band with the strongest clustering. Hot spot analysis, using the Getis-Ord Gi* statistic, identified significant hot or cold spots, highlighting areas of high or low adherence clustering [4]. These methods allowed for the identification of spatial patterns and determinants of adherence rates.

Spatial interpolation.

To estimate RDT prevalence among children aged 6-59 months diagnosed with malaria in the NMIS of unsampled areas, we employed a spatial interpolation technique. Specifically, geostatistical empirical Bayesian Kriging was used with ArcGIS V.10.8 software. This method accounts for the fact that the observed semivariogram in the input data may not follow a Gaussian distribution, which is often the case in practice. Empirical Bayesian Kriging incorporates Bayes’ rule to determine the weights of the new simulated semivariogram, allowing for more accurate predictions in areas without direct measurements [11].

Spatial scan statistics.

To identify significant clusters RDT prevalence among children aged 6-59 months diagnosed with malaria, we utilized Kuldorff’s SaTScan V.9.6 software and applied Bernoulli-based model spatial scan statistics. The scanning window method was employed, where the window moved across the study area, considering RDT prevalence among children aged 6-59 months diagnosed with malaria as cases and those with adequate intake as controls. The Bernoulli model was fitted to assess the likelihood of clusters. We set the default maximum spatial cluster size to be less than 50% of the population, enabling the detection of both small and large clusters. Clusters exceeding the maximum limit and those with non-circular shapes were disregarded. The most likely clusters were determined based on p-values and log-likelihood ratio (LLR) tests, using 999 Monte Carlo replications [12].

Significance threshold for spatial clusters.

The statistical significance of spatial patterns and clusters was evaluated at a threshold of p < 0.05. For Moran′s I and Incremental Spatial Autocorrelation, significance was assessed using 999 random permutations. Hot spot analysis with the Getis-Ord Gi* statistic was based on z-scores and corresponding p-values. For spatial scan statistics (SaTScan), statistical significance of the identified clusters was evaluated using log-likelihood ratio (LLR) tests with 999 Monte Carlo replications. Clusters with p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression analysis.

Due to the hierarchical structure of the NMIS dataset, the observations within clusters are correlated, violating the assumption of independence. The intraclass correlation (ICC) was calculated to measure the correlation within clusters [9]. The ICC formula used was ICC = VA/(VA + π2/3), where VA represents the estimated variance in each model [17]. The proportional change in variance (PCV) was calculated to assess the total variation attributed to individual or community-level factors. PCV was computed as PCV = (VA - VB)/VA, where VA is the variance of the initial model and VB is the variance of the model with additional terms [15]. The median odds ratio (MOR) was employed to measure unexplained cluster heterogeneity and variation between clusters. MOR compares two individuals from randomly chosen clusters and is determined using the formula MOR=exp(2·VA·0.6745)≈exp(0.95·VA),VA represents the cluster-level variance. MOR is always equal to or greater than 1, with a value of 1 indicating no variation between clusters [15]. To identify factors associated with malaria prevalence among children aged 6-59 months, multilevel models were fitted. Model I, or the empty model, decomposed the total variance into individual and community-level components. Model II included individual-level factors, while Model III incorporated household-level factors. Model IV introduced community-level factors, and the final model included both individual and community-level factors. The deviance information criteria, namely Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), were utilized to compare the models and determine the best-fitting model [6].

Results and discussion

Results

Among 4724 children ages 6-59 months analyzed, 1121 (23.7%) tested positive for malaria with RDT. Out of the 4724 RDT tests conducted, 53% (594) were performed on male children and 47% (527) of female children yielded positive results for malaria. The age group with the highest positive rate was children aged 38-50 months, accounting for 29% of the total tests. This was followed by the age group of 25-37 months, with a positive rate of 25%. The age group of 13-24 months had a positive rate of 16.2%. Among the RDT tests conducted, 20.9% (985) were on individuals residing in urban areas, with a positive rate of 6.6% (74). On the other hand, 79.2% (3739) of the tests were conducted on individuals residing in rural areas, with a significantly higher positive rate of 93.4% (1047). Out of the eight regions in Niger, the region with the highest number of positive malaria cases recorded was Niamey, where 28% (313) of the RDT tests were conducted. Maradi region had a positive rate of 19.5% (219), while Tillaberi and Zinder regions both had a positive rate of 18.3% (205). These findings highlight the contrast in malaria prevalence between urban and rural areas, with higher rates observed in rural regions. Additionally, the regional analysis reveals variations in malaria positivity rates, with Niamey, Maradi, Tillaberi, and Zinder regions having relatively higher rates compared to other regions. Among children sleeping in 1-3 rooms, 84.7% (949) tested positive for malaria. In comparison, among children sleeping in 4-6 rooms, 13.7% (153) tested positive for malaria. Regarding the use of Insecticide-Treated Nets (ITNs) among households with children under the age of five, 85.7% reported using both treated and untreated nets. Additionally, 14% reported using only treated nets. The highest positive malaria cases were among non-anemic children (54.6%), from non-educated mothers (80.4%), with the poorest economic status (24%) (Table 2).

Table 2. Malaria Prevalence among Children Aged 6-59 Months Diagnosed with RDT in the NMIS of 2021.

Summary of background variables (n = 4724).

Factors Category Total n (%) Prevalence of Malaria
Negative n (%) Positive n (%)
Child Sex Male 2402(50.9) 1808(38.3) 594(12.6)
Female 2322(49.1) 1795(38.0) 527(11.2)
Child age 6-12 577(12.2) 514(10.9) 63(1.3)
13-24 1078(22.8) 896(19.0) 182(3.9)
25-37 1145(24.2) 866(18.3) 279(5.9)
38-50 1074(22.7) 750(15.9) 324(6.9)
50-59 850(18.0) 577(12.2) 273(5.8)
Residence Urban 985(20.9) 911(19.3) 74(1.6)
Rural 3739(79.2) 2692(57.0) 1047(22.2)
Region Agadez 359(7.6) 352(7.4) 7(0.1)
Diffa 537(11.4) 516(10.9) 21(0.4)
Dosso 524(11.1) 353(7.5) 171(3.6)
Maradi 833(17.6) 614(13.0) 219(4.6)
Tahoua 636(13.5) 467(9.9) 169(3.6)
Tillaberi 628(13.3) 423(9.0) 205(4.3)
Zinder 816(17.3) 503(10.7) 205(4.3)
Niamey 391(8.3) 375(7.9) 313(6.6)
Anemia level Anemic 488(11.7) 234(5.0) 254(5.4)
Non Anemic 3673(88.3) 3367(71.3) 306(6.5)
Mother education level No Education 3002(72.4) 2245(47.5) 757(16.0)
Primary 651(15.7) 519(11.0) 132(2.8)
Secondary and Above 491(11.9) 438(9.3) 53(1.1)
Wealth index Poorest 1114(23.6) 850(18.0) 264(5.6)
Poor 831(17.6) 581(12.3) 250(5.3)
Middle 877(18.6) 613(13.0) 264(5.6)
Rich 862(18.3) 621(13.1) 241(5.1)
Richest 1040(22.0) 938(19.9) 102(2.2)
Has Mosquito Bed Nets No 234(5.0) 209(4.4) 25(0.5)
Yes 4490(95.1) 3394(71.8) 1096(23.2)
children Slept under Net Null 566(12.0) 481(10.2) 85(1.8)
1-3 3801(80.5) 2874(60.8) 927(19.6)
4-6 357(7.6) 248(5.3) 109(2.3)
children UN5 Slept under Net No 288(6.2) 238(5.0) 50(1.1)
All Children 3522(75.3) 2651(56.1) 871(18.4)
Some 636(13.6) 471(10.0) 165(3.5)
No Bed Net 234(5.0) 209(4.4) 25(0.5)
Insecticide-Treated Net Only Treated 829(17.6) 673(14.3) 156(3.3)
Both 3844(81.4) 2883(61.0) 961(20.3)
Untreated 3(0.1) 2(0.0) 1(0.1)
Don’t sleep under a net 48(1.0) 45(1.0) 3(0.1)
Number children 5 and under 0-2 3155(66.8) 2468(52.2) 687(14.5)
3-5 1464(31.0) 1061(22.5) 403(8.5)
6-8 105(2.2) 74(1.6) 31(0.7)
Number of room for sleeping 1-3 3961(83.9) 3012(63.8) 949(20.1)
4-6 668(14.1) 515(10.9) 153(3.2)
Above 7 95(2.0) 76(1.6) 19(0.4)

The prevalence of positive RDT results varies widely across regions, with R8 (Niamey) showing the lowest prevalence (2.5%) and R7 (Zinder) the highest (38.3%). Overall, around 28.7% of children tested positive, which suggests significant regional differences in malaria or related infections detected by RDT.Male and female distributions are roughly equal across regions, with a slight male majority (50.7%). This balanced distribution implies that sex likely does not play a major role in RDT positivity within this age group. The age distribution varies slightly across regions, with children aged 25-37 months being the largest group (24.4%). Younger children (6-12 months) are less represented in most regions, potentially indicating lower infection exposure or differing parental behaviors in bringing younger children for testing. A vast majority of the children in the study reside in rural areas (84.3%). Urban residency is only prominent in R8 (Niamey), where 95.4% are urban residents. This rural dominance in the sample suggests that rural children may face different environmental and health-related challenges, potentially affecting their RDT results.About 12.5% of children tested are anemic, with the highest prevalence in R7 (Zinder) and R3 (Dosso). Since anemia is often associated with malnutrition and infections (e.g., malaria), regions with higher RDT positivity, like Zinder, may also show higher anemia rates. There is a high proportion of mothers with no formal education (75.4%) across regions, especially in R7 (Zinder) and R2 (Diffa). This low level of maternal education could affect awareness and preventive health practices, possibly contributing to higher RDT positivity in some regions. Wealth distribution is skewed, with the poorest households (21.1%) and the richest (17.3%) being more prominent in R1 (Agadez) and R8 (Niamey), respectively. Poorer regions generally show higher RDT positivity, suggesting a correlation between lower wealth status and higher disease prevalence. Most households (97.3%) own bed nets, and a large portion of children (82.8%) reportedly sleep under them regularly. However, regional differences, such as lower usage rates in R8 (Niamey), indicate potential gaps in effective utilization or access. Consistent bed net use aligns with lower RDT positivity in some areas, underscoring its preventive impact. Most children sleep under insecticide-treated nets (85.0%). Regions like R3 (Dosso) and R7 (Zinder) have especially high coverage of treated nets, which could help explain variations in RDT positivity across regions. Households predominantly have 0-2 children under 5 years (64.3%), but regions like R6 (Tillaberi) and R7 (Zinder) show higher counts (3-5 children). This might impact disease transmission dynamics, as larger households can present higher exposure risk.Most households have 1-3 sleeping rooms (82.6%). Crowded conditions, particularly in regions with limited rooms like R4 (Maradi), might contribute to the spread of infectious diseases, affecting RDT results (Table 3).

Table 3. The weighted factors of RDT test results among children aged 6-59 month (n = 4869).

Factors Regions Total
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
RDT prevalence
Negative 97.9 96.4 68 72.3 72.9 67.9 61.7 97.5 71.3
Positive 2.1 3.7 32.1 27.7 27.1 32.1 38.3 2.5 28.7
Male 50.7 52.7 51.7 50.8 51.0 46.7 52.0 49.9 50.7
Female 49.3 47.3 48.3 49.2 49.0 53.3 48.0 50.1 49.3
Child age
6-12 12.3 10.5 13.0 14.9 8.9 14.6 11.6 14.0 12.5
13-24 23.3 19.6 24.4 22.8 24.4 22.7 22.8 22.5 23.2
25-37 26.1 25.1 24.3 23.9 26.3 22.8 24.4 22.4 24.4
38-50 20.4 24.7 23.4 21.7 21.9 22.4 21.5 24.4 22.1
50-59 18.0 20.1 14.8 16.7 18.5 17.5 19.8 16.7 17.9
Residence
Urban 45.8 25.8 10.1 15.4 10.9 6.9 7.2 95.4 15.7
Rural 54.2 74.2 89.9 84.6 89.1 93.1 92.6 4.6 84.3
Anemia level
Anemic 11.1 5.5 15.0 11.1 13.3 12.3 15.3 4.2 12.5
Non Anemic 88.9 94.5 85.0 88.9 86.7 87.7 84.7 95.8 87.5
Mother education level
No Education 59.3 78.4 70.7 78.4 77.9 70.8 84.9 29.9 75.4
Primary 17.1 14.2 15.9 15.5 14.9 20.4 9.5 22.3 15.0
Secondary and Above 23.6 7.4 13.4 6.1 7.2 8.9 5.7 47.8 9.6
Wealth index
Poorest 21.4 41.7 23.9 17.4 14.9 28.1 27.1 1.1 21.1
Poor 12.4 8.1 20.8 14.6 26.7 18.1 26.1 0.9 20.0
Middle 9.6 9.4 23.9 25.2 25.8 17.7 22.7 0.6 21.7
Rich 10.7 14.4 19.1 27.7 19.1 25.2 14.5 4.8 19.9
Richest 45.9 26.5 12.4 15.2 13.6 11.0 9.7 92.6 17.3
Has Bed Nets
No 5.9 18.1 2.1 2.2 1.3 4.6 0.4 8.4 2.7
Yes 94.1 81.9 97.9 97.8 98.7 95.4 99.6 91.6 97.3
children Slept under Net
Null 18.2 20.4 10.0 5.4 7.8 10.8 4.9 33.2 8.8
1-3 80.0 71.6 85.3 84.8 86.4 84.1 81.8 61.5 82.8
4-6 1.89 8.0 4.8 9.7 5.8 5.2 13.3 5.3 8.4
CUN5 Slept under Net
No 12.4 2.3 6.6 3.0 4.4 4.7 3.7 22.9 5.1
All Children 67.1 64.8 79.9 78.7 84.6 73.0 84.0 51.8 78.7
Some 14.7 14.8 11.4 16.1 9.7 17.7 11.9 16.6 13.6
No Bed Net 5.9 18.1 2.1 2.3 1.4 4.7 0.4 8.6 2.7
Insecticide Treated Net
Only Treated 24.9 25.4 15.2 12.2 13.0 17.3 8.5 40.2 14.3
Both 73.8 72.1 84.3 87.6 87.0 81.3 90.8 56.1 85.0
Not treated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1
Not under net 1.4 2.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.7 3.2 0.7
Regions
Factors R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 Total
No. children 5 and under
0-2 73.4 68.6 73.3 55.4 75.0 64.9 57.8 74.2 64.3
3-5 26.6 30.8 26.4 40.2 25.0 33.5 37.8 22.6 33.2
6-8 0.0 0.7 0.3 4.4 0.0 1.5 4.4 3.3 2.6
Number of room for sleeping
1-3 87.9 90.5 85.4 76.3 87.5 85.3 82.3 75.7 82.6
4-6 10.5 7.8 13.9 20.3 11.6 14.6 15.7 16.5 15.4
Above 7 1.7 1.6 0.8 3.4 0.9 0.1 2.0 7.7 2.0

R1=Agadez, R2=Diffa, R3=Dosso, R4=Maradi.

R5= Tahoua, R6=Tillaberi, R7=Zinder, R8=Niamey.

Spatial autocorrelation analysis malaria prevalence among children age 6-59 months

The spatial distribution of malaria prevalence among children aged 6-59 months in Niger was clustered with Global Moran′s I=0.434025 (z-score=10.471517, p value 0.001). This demonstrated the presence of spatial hotspot and cold spot clustering in Niger. With a z-score of 10.471517, there was less than a 1% chance that this high-clustered pattern was due to random chance. The tails’ bright red and blue colours indicate a higher level of significance (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Spatial autocorrelation analysis malaria prevalence among children age 6-59 months in Niger, 2021 Niger malaria indicator Survey.

Fig 1

Given the Z- score of 10.47 there is a less than 1% likelihood that this clustered pattern could be the result of random chance.

The areas highlighted in red, mostly along the southern part of Niger, indicate regions with a significantly high prevalence of malaria among children. The darkest red areas, meaning the clustering of high malaria prevalence is statistically significant in these regions. The blue areas, predominantly in the northern regions, represent locations with significantly lower prevalence rates of malaria among children. These cold spots, particularly with higher confidence levels (99% and 95%), indicate regions with fewer cases (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Hot spot analysis of prevalence of malaria among children in Niger, Map created by the authors using ArcGIS software and cluster data from the 2021 Niger Malaria Indicator Survey (NMIS), DHS Program.

Fig 2

Copyright rests with the authors and is distributed under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Spatial SaTScan analysis for prevalence of malaria among children in Niger

Spatial scan statistics revealed a total of 90 significant clusters, 40 of which were primary clusters (significant likelihood of adherence to RDT prevalence). Primary clusters were found in the Tillabéry, Dosso, and Maradi, was centred at ((13.234821 N, .808047 E)/177.87 km, with a relative risk (RR) of 2.1, meaning children in this cluster are 2.1 times more likely to adhere to RDT prevalence than those outside the cluster and an LLR of 91.2 with p value <0.0001. It was discovered that children who lived within the most likely cluster were 91% more likely to adhere to RDT than children who did not live within the spatial window (Table 4 and (Fig 3)).

Table 4. Significant SaTScan clusters of adherence to RDT among children aged 6-59 moths in Niger, 2021 Niger malaria indicator Survey.

Most likely clusters clusters detected Population(n) Cases(n) RR LL coordinates P-Value
Primary 169, 174, 173, 1113 438 2.1 91.2 (13.234821 N,
.808047 E)/177.87 km
<0.0001
167, 170, 160,
171, 168, 176,
172, 175, 166,
165,178,177,
186,185, 90,
179, 76, 161,
162, 164, 91,
93, 158, 181,
69, 87,92,
159, 86, 182,
163, 89, 79,
88, 180, 81, 82
Secondary a 62, 60, 61, 728 259 1.7 31.0 (11.749061 N,
.650199 E)/248.58 km
<0.0001
63, 47, 57,
66, 54, 59,
52, 65, 55,
53, 67, 58,
44, 56,43,
68, 45, 46,
48,135,50,
141, 64, 49,
138, 143, 142,
129, 51,137, 100
Secondary b 113, 115, 106, 170 75 1.9 17.7 (14.147479 N,
.971417 E)/40.02 km
0.000012
104, 114, 116, 118,
Secondary c 144, 147, 145, 164 69 1.8 13.9 (14.138878 N,
.090793 E)/38.71 km
0.00029
149, 155, 133,
150, 148, 134

Fig 3. SaTScan analysis for prevalence of malaria among children in Niger, Map created by the authors using ArcGIS software and cluster data from the 2021 Niger Malaria Indicator Survey (NMIS), DHS Program.

Fig 3

Copyright rests with the authors and is distributed under the CC BY 4.0 license.

The light orange areas reflect a moderate prevalence of malaria, while the yellow parts exhibit the lowest prevalence. The areas with the highest malaria prevalence were identified as being dark orange, whereas those with a significant malaria load were shown in red. The highest prevalence of malaria is found in the southwestern regions, which include Tillabéry, Dosso, and Maradi (Fig 4)).

Fig 4. Interpolation of prevalence of malaria among children in Niger, Map created by the authors using ArcGIS software and cluster data from the 2021 Niger Malaria Indicator Survey (NMIS), DHS Program.

Fig 4

Copyright rests with the authors and is distributed under the CC BY 4.0 license.

The findings of the random logistic regression analysis are summarized in Table 4. The empty model (Model I) shows that there are discrepancies in the prevalence of RDT for children. The ICC within the null model revealed that community-level variability accounted for 36.4% of the variability in RDT prevalence. Additionally, the null model’s MOR of 3.6 indicates that there was variation in adherence to RDT prevalence between clusters. Furthermore, the PCV of the whole model (model IV) revealed that individual and community factors accounted for roughly 50 percent of the difference in prevalence of RDT among children aged 6-59 months diagnosed with malaria. The unexplained community variance in prevalence of RDT for children was decreased to MOR=2 when all factors were incorporated to the null model. When all factors are taken into account, the effect of clustering remains statistically significant in the overall model (Table 5).

Table 5. Interpolation of prevalence of malaria among children in Niger, 2021 Niger malaria indicator Survey.

Measure of variation Model
Null model Model I Model II Model III
Community variance (SE) 1.9(0.35) 1.4(0.28) 1.2(0.21) 0.6(0.10)
ICC(%) 36.4 29.7 27.4 15.4
PCV(%) 1 26.3 14.3 50.0
MOR 3.6 3.1 2.8 2.0
Model fit statistics
-2*LL(DIC) 5358.4 2057.4 5210.4 1995.4
AIC 5362.3 2101.3 5231.2 2055.5
BIC 5375.3 2237.8 5295.8 2241.6

AIC, Akaike’s information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; DIC, deviance information criteria; ICC, intraclass correlation;

MOR, median OR; PCV, proportional change in variance.

Older children (especially those 25 months and older) have significantly higher odds of testing positive for malaria, with the odds increasing as age increases.

Children in rural areas have significantly higher odds of testing positive for malaria compared to those in urban areas.

Anemia is strongly associated with malaria prevalence. Children who are non-anemic have a much higher likelihood of testing positive for malaria.

Maternal education, particularly primary education, is associated with a slight increase in the odds of a child testing positive for malaria.

The AOR is 0.5 (CI: 0.26–0.90) in Model I, indicating that children using treated nets are less likely to test positive for malaria. This result is even more pronounced in Model II (AOR: 0.5, CI: 0.27–0.91).

The AOR is 1.4 (CI: 1.04–1.89) in Model I and remains at 1.4 (CI: 1.03–1.87) in Model II, suggesting that households with 3-5 children under 5 years have higher odds of a child testing positive for malaria.

Significant regional variations are observed, with areas like Zinder, Dosso, Tillaberi, and Maradi showing extremely high odds of testing positive for malaria.

Zinder: The AOR is 23.5 (CI: 6.19–89.11) in the null model, and increases to 151.1 (CI: 9.82–2326.02) in Model II, indicating very high odds of malaria positivity. Other regions such as Dosso, Tillaberi, and Maradi also show increased odds of testing positive, with AOR values as high as 115.6 and 54.0, respectively and Niamey shows the smallest odds ratio of 2.3 (Tables 6 and 7).

Table 6. Multivariate multilevel logistic regression analysis of child and community level factors associated with prevalence of RDT among children aged 6-59 months diagnosed with malaria in the NMIS of 2021.

variables Model
Null model Model I Model II Model III
AOR (95% CI) AOR(95% CI)
Child sex
Male 1 1
Female 0.9(0.68-1.11) 0.9(0.68-1.12)
Child age
6-12 1 1
13-24 1.7(1.03-2.85)* 1.7(1.04-2.88)**
25-37 5.4(3.31-8.87)*** 5.6(3.4- 9.15)***
38-50 6.6(4.01-11.01)*** 6.9(4.17-11.51)***
50-59 8.5(5.06-14.33)*** 8.8(5.22-14.86)***
Residence
Urban 1 1
Rural 3.2(1.96-5.12)*** 5.1(1.76-14.64)***
Anemia level
Anemic 1 1
Non Anemic 27.2(19.51-37.88)*** 27.5(19.72-38.4.0)***
Mother education level
No Education 1 1
Primary 1.6(1.10-2.26)* 1.7(1.19-2.45)**
Secondary
and Above 1.1(0.60-1.84) 1.2(0.67- 2.09)
Wealth index
Poorest 1 1
Poor 0.9(0.59-1.33) 0.9(0.59-1.33)
Middle 0.9(0.62-1.41) 0.9(0.63-1.43)
Rich 0.6(0.37-0.93)* 0.7(0.41-1.04)
Richest 0.3(0.15-0.57)*** 0.8(0.35-1.63)
children Slept under Net
Null 1 1
1-3 1.6(0.73-3.57) 1.5(0.65-3.24)
4-6 3.6(1.44-9.78)** 3.3(1.28-8.76)**
CUN5 Slept under Net
No 1 1
All Children 1.4(0.83-2.24) 1.3(0.79-2.14)
No Bed Net 1.1(0.37-3.03) 1.3(0.43-0.68)
Insecticide Treated Net
Not under net 0.9(0.68-1.11) 0.9(0.68-1.12)
Only Treated 0.5(0.26-0.90)* 0.5(0.27-0.91)**
Not treated 0.1(0.00-0.87)* 0.1(0.00-0.85)**
No. children 5 and under
0-2 1 1
3-5 1.4(1.04-1.89)* 1.4(1.03-1.87)**
6-8 0.7(0.30-1.71) 0.7(0.27-1.56)
Region
Agadez 1 1
Diffa 1.4(0.27-7.59) 10.9(0.52-230.17)
Dosso 19.8(5.11-76.49)*** 115.6(7.35-1816.04)**
Maradi 15.1(3.98-57.42)*** 54.0(3.49-835.92)**
Tahoua 13.4(3.52-51.05)*** 38.2(2.46-592.79)**
Tillaberi 19.3(5.02-74.18)*** 78.3(5.00-1226.34)**
Zinder 23.5(6.19-89.11)*** 151.1(9.82- 2326.02)***
Niamey 2.3(0.45-11.5) 34.1(1.64-709.79)***

Table 7. Key Findings and Implications of Malaria Prevalence Study among Children Aged 6-59 Months in Niger (NMIS 2021).

Variable Key Findings Implications
Overall Prevalence 23.7% (1,121 out of 4,724) of children aged 6-59 months tested positive for malaria (RDT). Malaria remains a major public health concern among under-five children in Niger, requiring sustained prevention and control efforts.
Spatial Distribution Significant spatial clustering (Moran’s I = 0.434, p < 0.001) identified malaria hotspots mainly in southern regions (Zinder, Dosso, Maradi, Tillaberi). Interventions should be geographically targeted, prioritizing high-risk southern zones for intensified vector control and resource allocation.
Residence Rural children were 3-5 times more likely to test positive than urban children (AOR = 5.1, p < 0.001). Scale up access to malaria prevention and diagnosis in rural communities, including outreach and improved health service access.
Bed Net Use Use of insecticide-treated nets significantly reduced malaria risk (AOR = 0.5, p < 0.01). Reinforce ITN distribution and utilization campaigns, focusing on effective use rather than ownership alone.
Household Characteristics Households with 3-5 children under five had higher odds of malaria (AOR = 1.4, p < 0.05). Promote family-centered prevention education and ensure adequate bed net coverage per household.
Regional Effects Zinder (AOR = 151.1), Dosso (AOR = 115.6), Tillaberi (AOR = 78.3), and Maradi (AOR = 54.0) showed extremely high malaria odds. Urgent need for region-specific malaria control programs and localized monitoring systems.
Model Fit & Variation Multilevel modeling revealed that 36% of variation in malaria prevalence was due to community-level differences (ICC = 36.4%). Community-level interventions (e.g., sanitation, housing improvement) are critical alongside individual-level efforts.

Discussion

The results of this study shed important light on the factors and geographic variation in the prevalence of malaria in Niger’s 6-59-month-old population. Significant clustering of malaria prevalence is revealed by the results, indicating clear geographical differences impacted by behavioral, socioeconomic, and environmental factors. With a higher incidence in particular areas like Zinder, Dosso, Maradi, and Tillaberi, the spatial analysis demonstrates that malaria prevalence is not dispersed randomly but rather shows considerable clustering. These results are consistent with earlier studies showing that human activities that impact mosquito breeding grounds, vector density, and regional climate are factors that impact the spread of malaria.

The multilevel modeling approach used in this study shows the complex interplay of individual, household, and community-level factors associated with malaria prevalence. At the individual level, child age was a significant predictor, with older children exhibiting higher odds of testing positive for malaria. This trend may be attributed to increased exposure to mosquito bites as children grow older and become more mobile. Additionally, children from rural areas had significantly higher odds of malaria infection compared to their urban counterparts [1,14] and with non-anemic children showing a higher likelihood of malaria infection in which the findings align with existing evidences [2,7].

Similar to others one important factor that has been identified as influencing the prevalence of malaria was maternal education. Malaria prevalence was higher in children of mothers with lower levels of education, indicating that maternal awareness and knowledge are important factors in malaria prevention strategies. Mothers who have received education are more likely to use bed nets and seek treatment for their children in a timely manner, which lowers the chance of contracting malaria [5,13,19].

Agreeing with insights from areas [24], household factors, including the number of children sleeping under insecticide-treated nets (ITNs), also played a role in malaria prevalence. The results indicate that households with a higher number of children under bed nets had lower odds of malaria infection, reinforcing the protective effect of ITN usage. However, despite high bed net ownership rates, disparities in effective utilization remain a concern, particularly in rural.

Our study found that non-anemic children were more likely to test positive for malaria compared to anemic children, which appears counter-intuitive. This may be explained by the multifactorial nature of anemia, which can result from nutritional deficiencies, hemoglobinopathies, or other infections besides malaria. In addition, many malaria infections may be asymptomatic or in early stages before hemoglobin decline occurs. Evidence also suggests that iron deficiency and some hemoglobin disorders may reduce malaria parasite growth, offering partial protection [8,18].

The spatial scan statistics identified significant malaria clusters, with children residing within high-risk clusters being more than twice as likely to test positive for malaria compared to those outside these clusters. These findings suggest the need for geographically targeted interventions, such as indoor residual spraying and intensified vector control measures in high-prevalence areas. By prioritizing regions with the highest burden, malaria control programs can achieve more efficient resource allocation and improved public health outcomes.

Limitations and future directions.

Regarding the need for a deeper discussion on regional disparities and the limitations of RDTs as a diagnostic tool, while these factors are critical for a comprehensive analysis of malaria prevalence, our current study’s scope is constrained by the available data. The existing dataset does not contain sufficient detail on regional infrastructure, socioeconomic factors, or data from alternative diagnostic methods to support a robust and data-driven discussion on these points. Therefore, we recommend that future research in this area be designed to collect more granular data that would allow for a more thorough exploration of these important structural factors. This would provide valuable insights into the underlying drivers of the regional disparities observed in this study and offer a more complete picture of malaria epidemiology in the region.

Conclusion

This study highlights that malaria among under-five children in Niger remains deeply entrenched not only as a biomedical issue but as a structural and regulatory challenge. Maternal education, bed net use, anemia levels, and child age all had a substantial impact on the prevalence of malaria in Niger among children aged 6 to 59 months, according to the study. The findings emphasize the need of increasing insecticide-treated net coverage and putting customized interventions into place according to local conditions. The study also highlights the need of using geographical analysis to pinpoint high-risk locations, which can improve malaria control efforts and the efficient use of resources. The impact of malaria on the most vulnerable people can also be better understood by knowing the prevalence of the disease in particular age groups. To reduce the burden, malaria control must shift from broad policy statements to region-specific, enforceable strategies with stronger local governance and monitoring.

List of acronyms

  • AIC Akaike’s Information Criterion

  • BIC Bayesian Information Criterion

  • EA Enumeration Areas

  • GIS Geographic Information System

  • HBHI High Burden to High Impact

  • ICC Intraclass Correlation

  • LLR Log-Likelihood Ratio

  • MOR Median Odds Ratio

  • NMIS Niger Malaria Indicator Survey

  • PCV Proportional Change in Variance

  • RDT Rapid Diagnostic Tests

  • SaTScan Spatial and Temporal Scan Statistics.

Acknowledgments

The authors of this article would like to thank the Niger Malaria Indicator Survey With the official database of the DHS program for making the data available.

Data Availability

This study utilized data from the Niger Demographic and Health Survey, which is part of the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program. The dataset is publicly accessible at https://dhsprogram.com.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Abdishu M, Gobena T, Damena M, Abdi H, Birhanu A. Determinants of malaria morbidity among school-aged children living in East Hararghe Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia: a community-based case-control study. Pediatric Health Med Ther. 2022;13:183–93. doi: 10.2147/PHMT.S347621 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Anjorin S, Okolie E, Yaya S. Malaria profile and socioeconomic predictors among under-five children: an analysis of 11 sub-Saharan African countries. Malar J. 2023;22(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s12936-023-04484-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Anselin L. GIS research infrastructure for spatial analysis of real estate markets. Journal of Housing Research. 1998;9(1):113–33. doi: 10.1080/10835547.1998.12091930 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Getis A, Ord JK. The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geographical Analysis. 1992;24(3):189–206. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1992.tb00261.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gaston RT, Ramroop S. Prevalence of and factors associated with malaria in children under five years of age in Malawi, using malaria indicator survey data. Heliyon. 2020;6(5):e03946. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03946 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Goldstein H. Multilevel statistical models. John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
  • 7.Habyarimana F, Ramroop S. Prevalence and risk factors associated with malaria among children aged six months to 14 years old in rwanda: evidence from 2017 rwanda malaria indicator survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(21):7975. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17217975 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kassebaum NJ, Jasrasaria R, Naghavi M, Wulf SK, Johns N, Lozano R, et al. A systematic analysis of global anemia burden from 1990 to 2010. Blood. 2014;123(5):615–24. doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-06-508325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Katz MH. Multivariable analysis: a practical guide for clinicians and public health researchers. Cambridge University Press; 2011.
  • 10.Koko DC, et al. (2022). Analysis of attitudes and practices influencing adherence to seasonal malaria chemoprevention in children under 5 years of age in the Dosso Region of Niger. Malaria Journal 21(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Krivoruchko K. Empirical bayesian kriging. ArcUser. 2012;6(10):1145. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kulldorff M. A spatial scan statistic. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods. 1997;26(6):1481–96. doi: 10.1080/03610929708831995 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mbishi JV, Chombo S, Luoga P, Omary HJ, Paulo HA, Andrew J, et al. Malaria in under-five children: prevalence and multi-factor analysis of high-risk African countries. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):1687. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19206-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mengesha TB, Tessema B, Woyessa A. Spatial distribution and determinants of malaria among children in Ethiopia: A multilevel analysis. PLoS One. 2023;18(12):e0295237. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295237 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Merlo J. Invited commentary: multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity-a fundamental critique of the current probabilistic risk factor epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180(2):208–12; discussion 213-4. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwu108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Muhindo Mavoko H, Nabasumba C, Tinto H, D’Alessandro U, Grobusch MP, Lutumba P, et al. Impact of retreatment with an artemisinin-based combination on malaria incidence and its potential selection of resistant strains: study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial. Trials. 2013;14:307. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Royle JA. Review of: mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. arXiv preprint 2013. 10.48550/arXiv.1305.6995 [DOI]
  • 18.Spottiswoode N, Duffy PE, Drakesmith H. Iron, anemia and hepcidin in malaria. Front Pharmacol. 2014;5:125. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2014.00125 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sultana M, Sheikh N, Mahumud RA, Jahir T, Islam Z, Sarker AR. Prevalence and associated determinants of malaria parasites among Kenyan children. Trop Med Health. 2017;45:25. doi: 10.1186/s41182-017-0066-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.WHO. The E-2020 initiative of 21 malaria-eliminating countries: 2019 progress report. World Health Organization. 2019.
  • 21.WHO. World Malaria Report 2015. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. 2016.
  • 22.WHO. Global technical strategy for malaria 2016 -2030. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. 2015. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/documents/global-technical-strategy-for-malaria-2016-2030.pdf
  • 23.Wouterse F. Empowerment, climate change adaptation and agricultural production: evidence from Niger. Fostering transformation and growth in Niger’s agricultural sector. Wageningen Academic; 2018. p. 61–79.
  • 24.Zerdo Z, Bastiaens H, Anthierens S, Massebo F, Masne M, Biresaw G, et al. Long-lasting insecticide-treated bed net ownership, utilization and associated factors among school-age children in Dara Mallo and Uba Debretsehay districts, Southern Ethiopia. Malar J. 2020;19(1):369. doi: 10.1186/s12936-020-03437-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Luzia Carvalho

9 Sep 2025

PONE-D-25-18518Exploring Spatial Variation and Multilevel Modeling of Malaria Prevalence Among Children Aged 6-59 Months Based on RDT in Niger: Findings from the 2021 NMISPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Masresha,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLoS ONE. After careful consideration, we felt that your study has the potential to be published if it is revised to address specific topics raised by the reviewers. According to the reviewers, there are some specific areas where further improvements would be of substantial benefit to the readers.  For example, some inherent limitations of the study design should be included; in specially, the limitations of observational studies should be acknowledged.  Also, typographical and grammatical errors throughout the manuscript should be adjust. For your guidance, a copy of the reviewers' comments was included below. Finally, please be sure to follow the PLOS ONE policies for publishing observational studies. For studies involving clinical data, use the STROBE checklist, and for studies with routinely collected data, use the RECORD checklist.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 24 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luzia H Carvalho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

3. We note that Figures 2, 3, and 4 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 2, 3, and 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer #1:

Reviewer #2:

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. Scientific relevance and originality

The study addresses a relevant and major public health issue in sub-Saharan Africa: the prevalence of malaria in children under five. The combined approach of spatial analysis and multilevel modeling is relevant and well justified. The originality lies in the use of NMIS 2021 data to produce a fine mapping of at-risk areas and identify multi-level determinants.

� Assessment: Relevant subject, innovative methodological approach for the Niger context.

2. Methodology

The article uses robust methods:

- Spatial analysis (Moran's I, Getis-Ord Gi*, SaTScan)

- Geostatistical interpolation (Empirical Bayesian Kriging)

- Multilevel modeling (mixed-effects logistics)

The models are well described, with goodness-of-fit indicators (AIC, BIC, DIC, ICC, MOR, PCV). Stratification of variables at different levels (individual, household, community) is rigorous.

� Suggestions:

- Clarify certain methodological choices, in particular the significance threshold for spatial clusters.

- Further justify the interpretation of certain counter-intuitive associations (e.g. non-anemia associated with higher prevalence).

3. Results

The results are clearly presented, with detailed tables and relevant geographical figures. The identification of high-risk clusters in the Zinder, Dosso, Maradi and Tillabéri regions is particularly useful for decision-makers.

� Strengths:

- Good visualization of spatial data.

- Well-structured multi-level analysis.

� Areas for improvement:

- Summarize key results more in the text to avoid number overload.

- Standardize percentages and headcounts in tables.

4. Discussion and interpretation

The discussion is well grounded in the existing literature. The authors interpret the results with caution and highlight the implications for public health policy.

� Recommendations:

- Deepen discussion of regional disparities and structural factors (access to care, infrastructure).

- Incorporate consideration of the limitations of RDTs as a diagnostic tool (sensitivity, specificity).

5. Conclusion

The conclusion is consistent with the results and highlights concrete recommendations: increased coverage of impregnated mosquito nets, targeted interventions according to risk areas, and the importance of maternal education.

� Assessment: Relevant conclusion, well aligned with study objectives.

6. Ethics, data availability and conflicts of interest

- The authors state that the data come from the DHS Program and are publicly available.

- No conflicts of interest declared.

- No direct collection of human data: ethics respected.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, Mulugeta et al. present the results of an epidemiological study that explored spatial variation and fitted a model for malaria prevalence among children aged 6 to 59 months in Niger. Although not original, the study is of great importance because it focused on a high-risk age group with high mortality for malaria in Africa, and it employed correct, robust, and up-to-date statistical methodologies to achieve the proposed objectives.

The statistical model proposed in the study is well explained and described. Authors utilized appropriate statistical tools for model fitting, such as the AIC, BIC, and DIC criteria, as well as to explain cluster heterogeneity in spatial analysis (MOR and PCV). The multilevel multivariate logistic regression is well-structured and clearly presented.

The manuscript is well written and clearly presented. Discussion and Conclusion were consistent with the study objectives and the results obtained. Moreover, the authors highlight important recommendations for incorporation into the malaria control strategy targeting the studied age group.

Although the authors were cautious in stating the study’s conclusions, some inherent limitations of the study design were omitted. Among the potential limitations are those inherent to the use of secondary data, which are subject to issues of quality and coverage, as well as the expected underestimation of new malaria cases, arising both from the existence of undiagnosed cases (asymptomatic or not reported in the information system). Another limitation that cannot be omitted is the low sensitivity of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for malaria cases with low parasitemia.

Additionally, the authors should correct various typographical and grammatical errors throughout the manuscript to improve the clarity and professionalism of the scientific writing. Special attention to:

1. Missing space after period at the end of a sentence, occurring in several sentences of the text.

2. "known as a vector of infection" could be simplified to "which acts as a vector".

3. "a bite from an infected insect". It is better as "a bite from an infected mosquito".

4. "This is compared to 593,000 cases in 2021" refers to deaths but uses "cases" erroneously - should be "deaths".

5. "children under five at particularly high risk" should be "children under five years old are at particularly high risk".

6. "[?, 12, 28]" The question mark indicates a missing or placeholder reference; it needs to be replaced with the proper citation number.

7. "Niger malaria indicator survey (NMIS)" - "Niger Malaria Indicator Survey (NMIS)" (capitalize proper nouns).

8. "geographic coordinates (longitude and latitude)" - Standard order is "latitude and longitude."

9. "Enumeration Areas (EAs) or cluster level" - Should be "Enumeration Areas (EAs) or cluster level" or "clusters".

10. "Correct capitalization and style: "Stata v14".

11. Missing space after comma: "ICF International, the datasets".

12. "accessible web-site" — "website" is one word; hyphen unnecessary.

13. "write the studys title and signifi-cance" — Should be "study’s title and significance" with an apostrophe; hyphenation in "signifi-cance" should be corrected to "significance".

14. "Independent Variables The Geo-statistical model utilized individual and community-level variables 5.” – What is this 5?

15. Hyphenation & spacing: Several places require adding spaces after punctuation marks before continuing, e.g., after commas and periods.

16. Consider defining acronyms upon first usage if not done elsewhere, e.g., "RDT," "SaTScan," "ICC," "VA," "PCV," etc.

17. “but "47% (527)" says "female child yielded" where "child" should be plural "children".

18. "Out of the 4724 RDT tests conducted, 53% (594) were performed on male children, and 47% (527) of female child yielded positive results for malaria." Should be: "...and 47% (527) of female children yielded positive.

19. "The tails bright red and blue colours indicate a higher level of significance (Fig 1)." - Remove extra space before parentheses. "Globally Morans I=0.434025 (z-score=10.471517, p value 0.001)." Should be: "Global Moran's I = 0.434 (z-score = 10.47, p = 0.001)." Use apostrophe in "Moran's".

There are several other typographical errors not mentioned above. The authors are advised to make the necessary corrections.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr Bougouma Edith Christiane / Bougouma.cedith@gmail.com

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review Dr Bougouma Edith 06 07 2025.docx

pone.0336022.s001.docx (17.4KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 Dec 1;20(12):e0336022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0336022.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


23 Sep 2025

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1:

2. Methodology

� Suggestions:

- Clarify certain methodological choices, in particular the significance threshold for spatial clusters.

- Further justify the interpretation of certain counter-intuitive associations (e.g. non-anemia associated with higher prevalence).

Response

We have made revision with significance threshold details in separate section and define how significance was assessed in Moran’s I, Gi*, and SaTScan.

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the counter-intuitive finding. Several possible explanations may account for our result. We have revised the discussion section to include these points and provide a more balanced interpretation.

3. Results

� Areas for improvement:

- Summarize key results more in the text to avoid number overload.

- Standardize percentages and headcounts in tables.

Response

-Thank you for your valuable feedback on the table's structure. As per your recommendation, we have revised the table to ensure all data is presented in a standardized format. Specifically, we have implemented a uniform basis for all percentage calculations, using a single, consistent denominator across the entire table.

-We appreciate the feedback regarding the need to summarize our key results more concisely to avoid 'number overload.' Given the nature of our spatial modeling, which generates extensive data, we have carefully selected only the most relevant and essential numerical figures for inclusion in the main text. Presenting these specific values is crucial, as further removal would render the analysis less informative and compromise the integrity of our findings. Therefore, we have opted to prioritize a comprehensive presentation of our results over a text-heavy narrative, ensuring the reader has access to the core data supporting our conclusions.

4. Discussion and interpretation

� Recommendations:

- Deepen discussion of regional disparities and structural factors (access to care, infrastructure).

- Incorporate consideration of the limitations of RDTs as a diagnostic tool (sensitivity, specificity).

Response

While we agree that these points are crucial for a comprehensive study, we cannot introduce information because of the available data.

Having your Recommendations we added a section of Limitations and Future Directions to the discussion that acknowledges these limitations as areas for future research.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2:

Reviewer #2:

Additionally, the authors should correct various typographical and grammatical errors throughout the manuscript to improve the clarity and professionalism of the scientific writing. Special attention to:

1. Missing space after period at the end of a sentence, occurring in several sentences of the text.

2. "known as a vector of infection" could be simplified to "which acts as a vector".

3. "a bite from an infected insect". It is better as "a bite from an infected mosquito".

4. "This is compared to 593,000 cases in 2021" refers to deaths but uses "cases" erroneously - should be "deaths".

5. "children under five at particularly high risk" should be "children under five years old are at particularly high risk".

6. "[?, 12, 28]" The question mark indicates a missing or placeholder reference; it needs to be replaced with the proper citation number.

7. "Niger malaria indicator survey (NMIS)" - "Niger Malaria Indicator Survey (NMIS)"

(capitalize proper nouns).

8. "geographic coordinates (longitude and latitude)" - Standard order is "latitude and longitude."

9. "Enumeration Areas (EAs) or cluster level" - Should be "Enumeration Areas (EAs) or cluster level" or "clusters".

10. "Correct capitalization and style: "Stata v14".

11. Missing space after comma: "ICF International, the datasets".

12. "accessible web-site" — "website" is one word; hyphen unnecessary.

13. "write the studys title and signifi-cance" — Should be "study’s title and significance" with an apostrophe; hyphenation in "signifi-cance" should be corrected to "significance".

14. "Independent Variables The Geo-statistical model utilized individual and community-level variables 5.” – What is this 5?

15. Hyphenation & spacing: Several places require adding spaces after punctuation marks before continuing, e.g., after commas and periods.

16. Consider defining acronyms upon first usage if not done elsewhere, e.g., "RDT," "SaTScan," "ICC," "VA," "PCV," etc.

17. “but "47% (527)" says "female child yielded" where "child" should be plural "children".

18. "Out of the 4724 RDT tests conducted, 53% (594) were performed on male children, and 47% (527) of female child yielded positive results for malaria." Should be: "...and 47% (527) of

female children yielded positive.

19. "The tails bright red and blue colours indicate a higher level of significance (Fig 1)." - Remove extra space before parentheses. "Globally Morans I=0.434025 (z-score=10.471517, p value 0.001)." Should be: "Global Moran's I = 0.434 (z-score = 10.47, p = 0.001)." Use apostrophe in "Moran's".

Response

This level of comprehensive feedback is highly appreciated as it directly contributes to strengthening our work. We have carefully reviewed our writing and spaces after punctuations. All suggested changes, which we agree will significantly enhance the quality of our paper. Most of those mistakes happened because we are writing in LaTeX.

- We give definition for acronyms under the Acronym section.

VA is the variance of the initial model

and VB is the variance of the model with additional terms. The description is given in methodology section.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0336022.s002.docx (23.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Luzia Carvalho

8 Oct 2025

PONE-D-25-18518R1Exploring Spatial Variation and Multilevel Modeling of Malaria Prevalence Among Children Aged 6-59 Months Based on RDT in Niger: Findings from the 2021 NMISPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Masresha,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLoS ONE. ​After careful consideration, we feel that your manuscript will likely be suitable for publication if the authors revise it to address specific points raised now by the reviewer #1. According to the reviewer, there are some specific areas where further improvements would be of substantial benefit to the readers.   For your guidance, a copy of the reviewers' comments was included below.  

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 22 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luzia H Carvalho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript offers a valuable scientific contribution with a sound methodology and well-articulated discussion. It meets the core standards of PLOS ONE in terms of quality, ethics, and transparency.

To enhance clarity, nuance, and regulatory impact, the following minor revisions are recommended:

Editorial clarity: Simplify complex sentences and consider adding subheadings to improve flow.

Interpretive nuance: Avoid overgeneralizations and adopt a more cautious tone in interpreting results.

Regulatory relevance: Elaborate on how findings may inform regulatory decisions, professional practices, or policy frameworks.

Visual synthesis: Include a summary figure or table to highlight key outcomes and recommendations.

These revisions are minor and easily implementable. They aim to optimize the manuscript’s reception among readers, practitioners, and regulatory stakeholders.

Final Recommendation: Accept after minor revision, with encouragement to further emphasize the regulatory significance of the work.

Final Recommendation : Accept after minor revision, with encouragement to further emphasize the regulatory significance of the work

� Title and Abstract : Suggestion : Consider adding a sentence that highlights the practical or regulatory implications of the findings to enhance impact.

� Introduction: Suggestion: A brief overview of international regulatory frameworks could broaden the relevance of the study.

� Methodology

� Areas for improvement:

� Expand on potential biases (e.g., selection bias, sample representativeness).

� Clarify quality control procedures and reference applicable regulatory standards.

� Results : Suggestion: A summary figure or table synthesizing key findings and their implications could improve readability and accessibility.

Discussion : Recommendations:

Soften overly assertive interpretations by using cautious scientific language (e.g., “these findings suggest…”).

Provide concrete suggestions for translating results into pharmaceutical policy or practice.

Strengthen connections to normative frameworks (e.g., ICH, WHO, national guidelines).

� Conclusion

Suggestion : Reinforce the link between findings and regulatory challenges in low-resource settings or African contexts

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr Bougouma Edith Christiane

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Dec 1;20(12):e0336022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0336022.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


17 Oct 2025

PONE-D-25-18518

Exploring Spatial Variation and Multilevel Modeling of Malaria Prevalence among Children Aged 6-59 Months Based on RDT in Niger: Findings from the 2021 NMIS

PLOS ONE

Manuscript Comment and Correction

Response to Reviewer #1

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive feedback, as well as for recognizing the scientific contribution, methodological rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript. We appreciate the recommendation for “acceptance after minor revision” and are pleased to address each suggestion in detail below. All corresponding changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.

Summary of Revisions Based on Reviewer Suggestions

Reviewer Comment Our Response

Reviewer Comment: Title & Abstract – highlight practical relevance

Response: The title is modified and We added a sentence in the abstract underscoring the regulatory and public health significance of the findings.

Reviewer Comment: Introduction – add international regulatory context

Response: A brief overview of relevant global frameworks (WHO) has been included to broaden scope and applicability.

Reviewer Comment: Methodology – address bias and quality control standards

Response: We expanded the section on how the selection has done.

Reviewer Comment: Discussion – connect findings to pharmaceutical policy and normative frameworks

Response: Even if it is not enough, we tried to modify the discussion section.

Reviewer Comment: Conclusion – reinforce relevance to low-resource or African regulatory contexts

Response: The conclusion now includes a focused statement on the implications for regulatory systems in low- and middle-income settings, particularly within Africa.

We appreciate the reviewer’s positive evaluation and constructive recommendations, which have significantly strengthened the clarity, regulatory relevance, and overall impact of the manuscript. We hope that the revisions satisfactorily address all concerns and respectfully submit the updated version for final consideration.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

pone.0336022.s003.docx (18.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Luzia Carvalho

21 Oct 2025

Exploring Spatial Variation and Multilevel Modeling of Malaria Prevalence Among Children Aged 6-59 Months Based on RDT in Niger: Insights for Public Health Decision-Making

PONE-D-25-18518R2

Dear Dr. Masresha,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Luzia H Carvalho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Luzia Carvalho

PONE-D-25-18518R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Masresha,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Luzia H Carvalho

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review Dr Bougouma Edith 06 07 2025.docx

    pone.0336022.s001.docx (17.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0336022.s002.docx (23.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

    pone.0336022.s003.docx (18.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    This study utilized data from the Niger Demographic and Health Survey, which is part of the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program. The dataset is publicly accessible at https://dhsprogram.com.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES