Abstract
Background
Malaria remains a significant public health challenge, particularly in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province, where transmission patterns vary across districts. This study aimed to identify the determinants of malaria transmission using model selection techniques.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted among general population across various districts in KP, including northern, central, and southern zones. A total of 768 participants across the province were surveyed using a structured questionnaire having socio-demographic variables, housing conditions, access to healthcare, and preventive practices. Malaria infection was diagnosed using the combo rapid diagnostic test. Logistic regression models, including automated model selection techniques, were employed to identify significant predictors of malaria.
Results
The overall proportion of malaria among respondents was 24.5%. Bivariate analysis showed that male gender, younger age (16–30 years), joint family system, low education, poor housing conditions, low income, long distance to health centers, and non-use of bed nets were significantly associated with malaria (p < 0.05). Final multivariate model results identified gender (AOR 1.8, CI 1.1–2.8, P < 0.05), age group 16–30 years (AOR 4.2, CI 2.1–8.5, P < 0.01), age group 31–50 years (AOR 8.3, CI 4.2–16.3, P < 0.01), age group > 50 years (AOR 3.6, CI 1.9–6.7, P < 0.01), family type (AOR 2.6, CI 1.47–4.61, P = 0.001), education level (AOR 3.9, CI 2.6–5.9, P < 0.01), income level (10,000–50000 rupees) (AOR 17.8, CI 8.1–38.9, P < 0.05), large family size (AOR 11.3, CI 5.9–21.7, P < 0.05), distance of > 3 km to healthcare facilities (AOR 3.1, CI 1.8–5.3, P < 0.01), and lack of modern toilets (AOR 4.8, CI 2.4–9.4, P < 0.01) as independent risk factors of malaria prevalence.
Conclusion
The study highlights multiple risk factors contributing to malaria prevalence in KP. Tailored interventions, including improved access to education, healthcare, sanitation, and preventive tools like bed nets, are critical. Future studies incorporating geographic mapping and seasonal trends are recommended to strengthen targeted malaria control strategies.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12936-025-05731-w.
Keywords: Malaria, Vector borne disease, Determinants, Transmission, Infectious diseases
Introduction
Infectious diseases remain significant challenges in the field of global health, ones that require careful thought and multifaceted approaches [1]. Since infectious diseases like malaria affect millions of people worldwide and have a considerable economic impact on the areas in which they occur, they pose a severe threat to public health [2]. Due to the global spread of its vectors, malaria is recognized as a mosquito-borne illness that spreads quickly and has a significant impact on morbidity and death,as, it poses a global public health concern [2, 3]. As per the WHO report 2022, there was an endemic prevalence of malaria in Pakistan between January and August 2022, with over 3.4 million suspected cases registered [4], as opposed to 2.6 million cases reported in 2021. Approximately 170,000 instances were confirmed in a lab setting, with 77% of those cases being caused by Plasmodium vivax and 23% by Plasmodium falciparum, which is linked to the deadliest and most severe cases [5]. According to the World Health Organisation, 84% of malaria cases in Pakistan are caused by P. vivax, with P. falciparum accounting for 14.9% of cases and mixed cases (double infections with P. vivax and P. falciparum) for 1.1% of cases [6].
Despite all of the disease control measures that the relevant authorities have developed and implemented, malaria still has a substantial impact on developing countries like Pakistan [7]. Malaria is more common disease in the tropics and subtropical regions [8]. Proper and early detection of malaria help in the reduction of transmission [9]. Human Plasmodium infections can present with a broad spectrum of symptoms, from mild malaria to severe cases. The 2015 WHO criteria for severe malaria include the following symptoms: hypoglycemia, jaundice, pulmonary edema, hemorrhage, numerous convulsions, prostration, acute renal failure, metabolic acidosis or acute respiratory distress, severe anemia, and pulmonary edema [10].
The occurrence, transmission, seasonality, and periodicity of malaria in particular—as well as the geographical and temporal distribution, severity, and duration of infectious diseases in general—are all influenced by socio-environmental factors [11].Understanding malaria dynamics in the context of local socioeconomic and meteorological conditions helps identify the significance of local variables driving malaria variability across time and space [12]. Poorly constructed homes allow easy entry for vectors carrying Plasmodium, increasing the risk of infection for household members. Low-income individuals often struggle to afford medications, related medical expenses, insecticide-treated bed nets (in countries where they are not distributed free of charge), and chemicals for indoor spraying [13].
There are numerous challenges in combating recurrent malaria in Pakistan. It is essential to assess the risk factors associated with malaria across different localities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), Pakistan. Therefore, we conducted a study with the primary objective of identifying the determinants contributing to malaria transmission. The findings will help communities adopt effective preventive measures and will provide policymakers with valuable insights to develop informed strategies for malaria prevention in KP.
Methods
Study design and settings
The cross-sectional study was conducted from Jan 2022- Dec 2022 in selected districts of KP. This community-based study involved respondents from various districts of KP, including Dera Ismail Khan, Bannu, Karak, and Tank (south zone); Haripur, Abbottabad, Dir, Kohistan, Swat, and Chitral (north zone); and Peshawar, Charsadda, Nowshera, and Mardan (central zone). Inclusion criteria included participants who were willing to participate, available at home at the time of data collection, from any age group, and with no restrictions based on fever history.
Sample size and sampling strategy
A representative sample of respondents was selected from various districts of KP. We used a two-stage sampling design. In the first stage, Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) were selected using probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling, purposively considering the severity of the disease and the prevailing law and order situation. In the second stage, Secondary Sampling Units (SSUs) were identified for the selection of index respondents. SSUs were selected using random-cum-systematic random sampling. The sample size was calculated using a formula.
(), yielding an initial sample size of 384. However, considering the design effect (n x d), the final sample size was 768[14]. Design effect quantifies how much the actual sampling design increases or decreases the variance of your estimate compared to simple random sampling. A design effect of 2 was applied to the sample size obtained from the sample size formula to account for cluster sampling, which is a commonly used threshold value at a 95% confidence interval [14]. The sample was allocated Supplementary Table 1. The allocation of samples for socio-economic and demographic data was based on district population and reported malaria cases. Districts with higher populations and disease incidence were assigned larger samples, while those with lower malaria prevalence received smaller sample allocations.
Data collection procedure
A pretested, structured questionnaire adapted from the WHO core standard questionnaire was used to collect data on socio-economic and demographic factors related to malaria [14]. Trained enumerators collected data by Kobo App (https://www.kobotoolbox.org/).
Definition of malaria and study variables
Malaria was defined as a measured fever of ≥ 37.5 °C within the past 48 h accompanied by a positive blood smear for Plasmodium falciparum [15]. To confirm a malaria case, combo RDTs and microscopy were used interchangeably, depending on their availability at the laboratory. Explanatory variables included socio-economic and demographic characteristics such as age, sex, marital status, family size, education, occupation, family income, household type, distance to the nearest health center, water source, bed net availability and use, latrine availability, kind of utensils used for storing water, drinking water quality, and availability of any kind of livestock in home [14].
Statistical analysis
Data were checked, verified, and analyzed using statistical software (R). Descriptive statistics, odds ratios, and logistic regression models (binary and multiple) were used to analyze the data.
A household-level random effect was included because more than one participant could be sampled from the same household. To account for variability across districts, a district-level random effect was also incorporated into the multivariable logistic regression model. The logistic regression model was used to examine the relationships between the binary dependent variable and socio-economic variables. Automated model selection method using R with were used for the final determinants of malaria. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.
Results
Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the study population
Table 1 displays the percentage distribution of socio-economic variables. The total number of individuals included in the study were 768. The majority (69.4%) were males, 34.5% were between 30 to 50 years of age, 39.1% lived in semi-pucca houses (partially, 54.6% lived in nuclear families, and 46.2% had a small family size. Regarding education, 44% were below secondary school certificate (SSC). As for other characteristics, 55% were self-employed, the majority (37%) of respondents lived at a distance of 1–3 km from the nearest health center, 47.1% of households had an income above 50,000 rupees, 44.3% kept livestock, 66.9% had a safe flush toilet, and only 36.3% of respondents used bed nets while sleeping outdoors.
Table 1.
Percentage distribution of socioeconomic and demographic variables of the study population
| Characteristics | N | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 533 | 69.4 |
| Female | 235 | 30.6 | |
| Age (in years) | < = 15 | 147 | 19.1 |
| 16–30 | 166 | 21.6 | |
| 31–50 | 265 | 34.5 | |
| > 50 | 190 | 24.7 | |
| Family Size (individuals) | Small (1–5) | 355 | 46.2 |
| Medium (5–8) | 224 | 29.2 | |
| Large (> 8) | 189 | 24.6 | |
| Family Type | Joint | 349 | 45.4 |
| Nuclear | 419 | 54.6 | |
| Marital Status | Unmarried | 375 | 48.8 |
| Married | 393 | 51.2 | |
| Education of the Respondents | < SSC | 338 | 44.0 |
| = > SSC | 430 | 56.0 | |
| Occupation | Peasant | 173 | 22.5 |
| Employed | 138 | 17.9 | |
| Self-employed | 423 | 55.0 | |
| Un-Employed | 35 | 4.5 | |
| Income (RS) | < 20,000 | 233 | 30.3 |
| 20,000–50000 | 173 | 22.5 | |
| > 50,000 | 362 | 47.1 | |
| Availability of any Kind Of Livestock at household | Yes | 340 | 44.3 |
| No | 428 | 55.7 | |
| House Type | pucca | 178 | 23.2 |
| Semi pucca | 300 | 39.1 | |
| Kacha | 290 | 37.8 | |
| Modern Toilet facility available | Yes | 514 | 66.9 |
| No | 254 | 33.1 | |
| Kind Of Utensils Use For Storing Water | Without Lid | 289 | 37.7 |
| With Lid | 479 | 62.3 | |
| Drinking Water Quality | Not Improved | 365 | 47.5 |
| Improved | 403 | 52.5 | |
| Bed Net Use | No/Partial | 489 | 63.7 |
| Yes | 279 | 36.3 | |
Supplementary table shows the proportion of participants malaria positive in each district. The results revealed that proportion of malaria was 24.5% (n = 188) out of total 768 respondents.
Bi-variate logistic regression analysis for malaria and its associated risk actors
Bivariate logistic regression analysis with odds ratios is given in Table 2. The results revealed that males were 1.73 times more likely to suffer from malaria compared to females (OR = 1.73 (1.18–2.55), P < 0.001), and individuals aged 16 to 30 years were 5.20 times more likely to suffer from malaria compared to the age group greater than 50 years (OR = 5.20, P < 0.001). The odds of malaria were about 1.43 times higher in individuals living in a joint family system (OR = 1.43 (1.03–1.99), P < 0.05), while the odds of malaria were about 4.59 times higher in large family sizes compared to small family sizes (OR = 4.59 (3.02–6.99), P < 0.001). Similarly, those with no or below matric education were about 3 times more likely to suffer from malaria compared to individuals with matric or above education (OR = 3.12 (2.21–4.39), P < 0.001). Individuals living in houses constructed with semi/partial concrete materials were about 1.76 times (OR = 1.76 (1.15–2.69), P < 0.01) more likely to suffer from malaria, and those living in houses constructed with mud/kacha materials were about 1.2 times (OR = 1.21 (0.82–1.76), P > 0.05) more likely to suffer from malaria compared to individuals living in houses with full concrete/pucca construction materials. People with low income (i.e., income < Rs. 10,000) were about 3 times (OR = 3.02 (2.01–4.53), P < 0.001) more likely, and those with middle income (i.e., income Rs. 10,000–50,000) were about 3.5 times (OR = 3.49 (2.27–5.36), P < 0.001) more likely to suffer from malaria compared to individuals with income above Rs. 50,000. People living at a distance of 1–3 km and more than 3 km from the Nearest Health Center (NHC) were about 1.7 and 2.2 times, respectively, and significantly more likely to suffer from malaria compared to those living at a distance of below 1 km from NHC. Those who were not using bed nets were about 2.59 times (OR = 2.59 (1.76–3.81), P < 0.001) more likely to suffer from malaria compared to those using bed nets while sleeping.
Table 2.
Results of binary logistic regression for Malaria
| Characteristics | Malaria | OR(CI) | P-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | ||||
| Gender | Male | 387 | 146 | 1.73 (1.18–2.55) | 0.005 |
| Female | 193 | 42 | – | ||
| Age (Years) | 0–15 | 107 | 40 | 3.18 (1.76–5.73) | < 0.01 |
| 16–30 | 103 | 63 | 5.20 (2.97–9.10)* | ||
| 31–50 | 200 | 65 | 2.76 (1.61–4.75)* | ||
| > 50 | 170 | 20 | – | ||
| House Type | pucca | 122 | 56 | – |
0.009 0.335 |
| Semi pucca | 228 | 72 | 1.76(1.15–2.69)* | ||
| Kacha | 230 | 60 | 1.21(0.82–1.76)NS | ||
| Family Type | Joint | 251 | 98 | 1.43(1.03–1.99)* | 0.035 |
| Individual | 329 | 90 | – | ||
| Family Size | Small | 307 | 48 | – | < 0.01 |
| Medium | 163 | 61 | 2.39(1.57–3.65)** | ||
| Large | 110 | 79 | 4.59(3.02–6.99)** | ||
| Education | < SSC | 216 | 122 | 3.12(2.21–4.39) | < 0.01 |
| > = SSC | 364 | 66 | – | ||
| Occupation | Peasant | 80 | 27 | 0.97(0.57–1.65) | > 0.05 |
| Employed | 135 | 49 | 1.04(0.67–1.63) | ||
| Self employed | 201 | 55 | 0.79(0.52–1.20) | ||
| Un-employed | 164 | 57 | – | ||
| Income (Rs) | < 10,000 | 157 | 76 | 3.02(2.01–4.53)** | < 0.01 |
| 10,000–50000 | 111 | 62 | 3.49(2.27–5.36) | ||
| > 50,000 | 312 | 50 | – | ||
| Availability of any kind of Livestock | Yes | 246 | 94 | 1.36(0.98–1.89) | 0.05 |
| No | 334 | 94 | – | ||
| Marital Status | Married | 298 | 95 | 1.03(0.74–1.44)* | 0.83 |
| Unmarried | 282 | 93 | – | ||
| Drinking Water Quality | Improved | 310 | 93 | – | 0.34 |
| Not Improved | 270 | 95 | 1.17 (0.84–1.63) | ||
| Distance to the Nearest Health Center | < 1 km | 184 | 37 | – |
0.026 0.001 |
| 1–3 km | 213 | 71 | 1.66 (1.06–2.58) | ||
| > 3 km | 183 | 80 | 2.17(1.40–3.38)** | ||
| Kind of Utensils Used for Storing Water | Without lid | 210 | 79 | 1.96 (1.374–2.78)** | < 0.001 |
| With lid | 370 | 109 | – | ||
| Bed Net Use? | Yes | 239 | 40 | – | < 0.01 |
| No | 341 | 148 | 2.59 (1.76–3.81) | ||
| Modern Toilet facility available | Yes | 388 | 126 | – | > 0.05 |
| No | 192 | 62 | 0.99 (0.70–1.41) | ||
*Shows results significant at 5% level of significance
**Shows results significant at 1% level of significance
NS stands for Non-significant
Stratified analysis of bed net uses by level of education on malaria status
The results of the stratified analysis of bed net utilization by education on the effect of malaria are presented in Supplementary Table 3. It is evident that individuals with no or less education are at a higher risk of being infected with malaria compared to individuals with SSC or higher education (OR = 1.67 for no or less than SSC education vs. OR = 1.10 for educated individuals). The analysis also showed a higher prevalence of malaria (39.2%) among suspected patients with no or less education who did not use bed nets, compared to educated suspected patients who also did not use bed nets during sleep (only 14.6%).
Summary statistics for the final model of collected data
Automated model selection method with were used for the final determinants. Using the optimal cutoff values for entry and removal of predictor variables in the model, the final multiple logistic regression model is summarized in Table 3. The results of multivariate model identified gender (AOR 1.8, CI 1.1–2.8, P < 0.05), age group 16–30 years (AOR 4.2, CI 2.1–8.5, P < 0.01), age group 31–50 years (AOR 8.3, CI 4.2–16.3, P < 0.01), age group > 50 years (AOR 3.6, CI 1.9–6.7, P < 0.01), family type (AOR 2.6, CI 1.47–4.61, P = 0.001), education level (AOR 3.9, CI 2.6–5.9, P < 0.01), income level 10,000–50000 rupees (AOR 17.8, CI 8.1–38.9, P < 0.05), large family size (AOR 11.3, CI 5.9–21.7, P < 0.05), distance to healthcare facilities more than 3 km (AOR 3.1, CI 1.8–5.3, P < 0.01), and lack of modern toilets (AOR 4.8, CI 2.4–9.4, P < 0.01) as independent risk factors of malaria prevalence.
Table 3.
Final model for the determinants of Malaria transmission
| B | S.E | Wald | df | Exp(B) | 95% CI | P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.586 | .235 | 6.205 | 1 | 1.797 | 1.13–2.85 | 0.013 | |
| Age (years) | 0–15 | |||||||
| 16–30 | 1.439 | 0.356 | 16.301 | 1 | 4.218 | 2.10–8.47 | < 0.01 | |
| 31–50 | 2.115 | 0.345 | 37.642 | 1 | 8.290 | 4.21–16.32 | < 0.01 | |
| > 50 | 1.268 | 0.327 | 15.041 | 1 | 3.555 | 1.87–6.74 | < 0.01 | |
| Family Type | 0.957 | 0.292 | 10.733 | 1 | 2.604 | 1.47–4.61 | 0.001 | |
| Education | 1.362 | 0.214 | 40.366 | 1 | 3.905 | 2.57–5.94 | < 0.01 | |
| Income (rupees) | < 10,000 | |||||||
| 10,000–50000 | 2.881 | 0.399 | 52.034 | 1 | 17.824 | 8.16–38.94 | < 0.01 | |
| > 50,000 | 1.783 | 0.276 | 41.606 | 1 | 5.946 | 3.46–10.22 | < 0.01 | |
| Family Size | Small | |||||||
| Medium | 1.820 | 0.346 | 27.611 | 1 | 6.173 | 3.13–12.15 | < 0.01 | |
| Large | 2.429 | 0.330 | 54.085 | 1 | 11.344 | 5.95–21.70 | < 0.01 | |
| Distance to the Nearest Health Center | < 1 km | |||||||
| 1–3 km | 0.655 | 0.275 | 5.671 | 1 | 1.925 | 1.12–3.30 | 0.017 | |
| > 3 km | 1.132 | 0.276 | 16.815 | 1 | 3.103 | 1.81–5.33 | < 0.01 | |
| Modern Toilet facility available | 1.560 | 0.347 | 20.272 | 1 | 4.760 | 2.41–9.40 | < 0.01 | |
| Constant | − 9.539 | 0.906 | 110.813 | 1 | 0.000 | < 0.01 |
Discussion
The study demonstrated a significant association between malaria and various socio-demographic factors, including age and gender of the head of household, family size, family type, educational status, toilet availability, distance to nearest healthcare facilities, and income level. Furthermore, the proportion was 24.5% of malaria Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, highlighting the substantial burden on the health system.
The two common parasites in the study region, Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax, impact individuals of all ages and genders [16]. In the current study, gender was a significant risk factor that influenced the frequency of malaria in a community. Women are comparatively more involved in interior domestic chores, while male heads of families are more likely to participate in outside activities, increasing their exposure to mosquitoes [17]. Many studies have explored the similar risk of getting malaria for both genders [18]. Our findings on the significant association between age and malaria status are consistent with Kigozi et al. (2020) [19]. While prior studies suggest that children under five are more likely to contract malaria [20]. other research indicates that early parental reporting, social lifestyle, knowledge, prevention, and maternal antibodies may contribute to lower malaria frequencies in children aged 1–3 [21].
The size of the family was one of the other extremely important socio-demographic factors that the current study examined. Compared to smaller families, households with more members or joint family had significantly greater odds of experiencing a malaria case, and these findings are consistent with the study reported by Thomas et. al [18]. This may be the case due to the higher likelihood of younger children in big households, who belong to a high-risk demographic. Because the olfactory signals for mosquitoes get stronger at crowding and attracting more insects, the number of occupants in a residence also increases the population of mosquitoes [22].
Another risk factor for the development of malaria was the distance between the home and the closest medical institution. According to the study's findings, family members who live close to health facilities tend to have more frequent and timely access to medical treatment than those who live far from such facilities. However, these findings are inconsistent with those of Toh et al. [23]. The distance to a health facility can be a barrier to regular health evaluations due to transportation costs and lost work time. The accessibility of a health institution is influenced by factors such as distance and transportation expenses.
The current research found a statistically significant relationship between participants' education level and malaria incidence. Respondents with lower levels of education and illiteracy were at a higher risk of contracting malaria, which is inconsistent with the findings of Siegert et al. [24]. This result was expected, as education improves knowledge of infectious diseases and necessary preventive measures. Education is thought to function as a protective social factor through various indirect pathways, including occupation, socioeconomic position, and symptom knowledge, which increases the likelihood of treatment-seeking behavior. However, a previous study in India found no association between education and malaria incidence [25].
Many studies have demonstrated a strong correlation between low income and malaria, which is commonly believed to be a disease of the poor. These findings are consistent with the current study [26]. However, other research has not shown a strong correlation between household income and malaria [17]. Additionally, malaria cases often increase after natural catastrophes, particularly in low-income nations like Pakistan [27]. The primary causes of this increase include inadequate vector control, inefficient surveillance systems, and poverty.
The study also investigated the relationship between malaria and toilets facility in households. Earlier research found that inadequate sanitation facilities represent a significant risk factor [28]. Another study found lack of toilet facility as a risk factor of malaria [29]. Another study reported that households with flush toilet had a decreased risk of malaria prevalence whereas no toilet facility increases risk of malaria [30].
The implementation of malaria control methods, such as bed nets greatly decreased the likelihood of contracting malaria. Use of bed nets prevents mosquito biting and thus prevents malaria. These findings are consistent with an earlier study [31]. However, some studies have found no correlation between the use of insecticide-treated nets, and long-lasting insecticide-treated nets [32]. In our study, bivariate analysis revealed a significant relationship between bed net use and malaria transmission, but this relationship was not significant in the final model.
There were certain limitations of the study. First, because of its cross-sectional study design, It may not show cause and effects. Second, as malaria in recurring in the region, mapping of the incidence is lacking. Therefore, in the future, we have planned to conduct study about the mapping of malaria for the targeted interventions. The altitude and latitude is also missing, which may show better interventions for the high and low altitude areas. Nevertheless, the current study has comprehensively identified the different risk factors of malaria by applying different statistical models.
Conclusion
This study highlights the multifactorial nature of malaria transmission in KP, Pakistan, with strong associations found between malaria infection and various determinants. Key risk factors identified include younger age, male gender, low educational attainment, low household income, large family size, distance from health facilities, poor housing construction, and lack of modern sanitation. Although preventive measures such as bed net use showed significance in bivariate analysis, their independent effect was not retained in the final model, suggesting the need for comprehensive interventions beyond individual behavior change. Policymakers and public health authorities should use these findings to inform district-level malaria control strategies, focusing on education, improved housing, access to healthcare, and sanitation. Government along with International NGOs should work in collaboration for preventive strategies to control malaria in the region. Future research should incorporate geographic mapping, altitude data, and seasonal patterns to enhance the targeting and effectiveness of malaria prevention programs in the region.
Supplementary Information
Acknowledgements
The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship for Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia for funding.
Author contributions
Ijaz ul Haq, Zafar Mehmoodand Amir Muhammad conceptualized and wrote the original manuscript. Elmuez, Humood and Sohail Akhtar curated and analyzed the data. Bilal Ahmed and Afia Zaib collected the data. Ghuasal Azam contributed in supervision. Mashael, Sara Awadelkarim Mohammed Ahmed and Shenqiang Qu reviewed the final version.
Funding
The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship for Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia for funding (Grant#KFU254369).
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study adhered to the guidelines set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki. The Ethical Committee of the University of Agriculture Peshawar, Pakistan, approved this study under IRB#05/21.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Elagali A, Shubayr M, Noureldin E, Alene KA, Elagali AJTM, Disease I. Spatiotemporal distribution of malaria in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2024;9(1):16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Chala B, Hamde FJFiph. Emerging and re-emerging vector-borne infectious diseases and the challenges for control: a review. Front Public Health. 2021;9:715759. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Anoopkumar A, Aneesh EMJE. Development, sustainability. A critical assessment of mosquito control and the influence of climate change on mosquito-borne disease epidemics. Environ Dev Sustain. 2022;24(6):8900–29. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Zaman N, Haq FU, Khan Z, Uallah W, Ualiyeva D, Waheed Y, et al. Incidence of malarial infection and response to antimalarial drugs at Districts Lower Dir and Swat of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Dialogues Health. 2022;1:100035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Islam MR, Dhar PS, Rahman MMJIJoS. Recently outbreak of malaria in current world: species, etiology, life cycle, transmission, symptoms, vaccination, diagnostic tests, treatment, and complications. Int J Surg. 2023;109(2):175–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Organization WH. WHO. World malaria report 2018. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/275867/9789241565653-eng.pdf?ua = 1. 2019.
- 7.Umer MF, Zofeen S, Majeed A, Hu W, Qi X, Zhuang GJIjoer. Spatiotemporal clustering analysis of malaria infection in Pakistan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(6):1202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Liu Q, Jing W, Kang L, Liu J, Liu MJJoTM. Trends of the global, regional and national incidence of malaria in 204 countries from 1990 to 2019 and implications for malaria prevention. J Travel Med. 2021;28(5):taab046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Oyegoke OO, Maharaj L, Akoniyon OP, Kwoji I, Roux AT, Adewumi TS, et al. Malaria diagnostic methods with the elimination goal in view. Parasitol Res. 2022;121(7):1867–85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Bittaye SO, Jagne A, Jaiteh LE, Nadjm B, Amambua-Ngwa A, Sesay AK, et al. Clinical manifestations and outcomes of severe malaria in adult patients admitted to a tertiary hospital in the Gambia. Malar J. 2022;21(1):270. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Umer MF, Zofeen S, Majeed A, Hu W, Qi X, Zhuang G. Effects of socio-environmental factors on malaria infection in Pakistan: a Bayesian spatial analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019. 10.3390/ijerph16081365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Bationo CS, Gaudart J, Dieng S, Cissoko M, Taconet P, Ouedraogo B, et al. Spatio-temporal analysis and prediction of malaria cases using remote sensing meteorological data in Diébougou health district, Burkina Faso, 2016–2017. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):20027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 13.Ngatu NR, Kanbara S, Renzaho A, Wumba R, Mbelambela EP, Muchanga SM, et al. Environmental and sociodemographic factors associated with household malaria burden in the Congo. Malar J. 2019;18:1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Haq IU, Mehmood Z, Albugami HF, Alaithan RH, Akhtar SJTAjotm, hygiene. Statistical Modeling for the Identification of Determinants of Dengue Transmission in Different Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan: A Cross-Sectional Study. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2025:10;113(2):353–360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 15.Afrane YA, Zhou G, Githeko AK, Yan GJMj. Clinical malaria case definition and malaria attributable fraction in the highlands of western Kenya. Malar J. 2014;13:1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Karim AM, Yasir M, Ali T, Malik SK, Ullah I, Qureshi NA, et al. Prevalence of clinical malaria and household characteristics of patients in tribal districts of Pakistan. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(5):e0009371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Sharma RK, Rajvanshi H, Bharti PK, Nisar S, Jayswar H, Mishra AK, et al. Socio-economic determinants of malaria in tribal dominated Mandla district enrolled in Malaria Elimination Demonstration Project in Madhya Pradesh. Malar J. 2021;20:1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Thomas S, Ravishankaran S, Asokan A, Johnson Amala Justin N, Maria Jusler Kalsingh T, Mathai MT, et al. Socio-demographic and household attributes may not necessarily influence malaria: evidence from a cross sectional study of households in an urban slum setting of Chennai, India. Malar J. 2018;17:1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 19.Kigozi SP, Kigozi RN, Epstein A, Mpimbaza A, Sserwanga A, Yeka A, et al. Rapid shifts in the age-specific burden of malaria following successful control interventions in four regions of Uganda. Malar J. 2020;19:1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Asif AM, Tahir MR, Arshad IAJJoTP. Socioeconomic condition and prevalence of malaria fever in Pakistani children: findings from a Community Health Survey. J Trop Pediatr. 2018;64(3):189–94. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 21.Bassey SE, Izah SCJJomR. Some determinant factors of Malaria Prevalence in Nigeria. J Mosquito R. 2017;7(7):48–58.
- 22.Mwingira V, Mboera LE, Dicke M, Takken WJJoVE. Exploiting the chemical ecology of mosquito oviposition behavior in mosquito surveillance and control: a review. J Vector Ecol 2020;45(2):155–79. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 23.Toh KB, Millar J, Psychas P, Abuaku B, Ahorlu C, Oppong S, et al. Guiding placement of health facilities using multiple malaria criteria and an interactive tool. Malar J. 2021;20:1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Siegert K, van Loon W, Gai PP, Rohmann JL, Piccininni M, Näher A-F, et al. The effect of socioeconomic factors and indoor residual spraying on malaria in Mangaluru, India: a case-control study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(22):11853. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Yadav K, Dhiman S, Rabha B, Saikia P, Veer VJIdop. Socio-economic determinants for malaria transmission risk in an endemic primary health centre in Assam, India. Infect Dis Poverty. 2014;3:1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 26.Wafula ST, Habermann T, Franke MA, May J, Puradiredja DI, Lorenz E, et al. What are the pathways between poverty and malaria in sub-Saharan Africa? A systematic review of mediation studies. Infect Dis Poverty. 2023;12(03):13–30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Venkatesan P. Disease outbreaks in Pakistan, Lebanon, and Syria. Lancet Microbe. 2023;4(1):e18-e9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Hasyim H, Dhimal M, Bauer J, Montag D, Groneberg DA, Kuch U, et al. Does livestock protect from malaria or facilitate malaria prevalence? A cross-sectional study in endemic rural areas of Indonesia. Malar J. 2018;17:1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Mhelembe T, Ramroop S, Habyarimana FJMJ. Assessing the influence of socioeconomic and environmental variables on malaria risk in Nigerian children under 5 years: a GLMM approach. Malar J. 2025;24(1):55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Yang D, He Y, Wu B, Deng Y, Li M, Yang Q, et al. Drinking water and sanitation conditions are associated with the risk of malaria among children under five years old in sub-Saharan Africa: a logistic regression model analysis of national survey data. J Adv Res. 2020;21:1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Pooseesod K, Parker DM, Meemon N, Lawpoolsri S, Singhasivanon P, Sattabongkot J, et al. Ownership and utilization of bed nets and reasons for use or non-use of bed nets among community members at risk of malaria along the Thai-Myanmar border. Malar J. 2021;20(1):305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Steinhardt LC, St Jean Y, Impoinvil D, Mace KE, Wiegand R, Huber CS, et al. Effectiveness of insecticide-treated bednets in malaria prevention in Haiti: a case-control study. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(1):e96–103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
