Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2026 Feb 27;20(2):e0013171. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013171

Significant gap between Point participation and long‑term treatment adherence: An evaluation of ivermectin MDA in the Kwanware‑Ottou persistent onchocerciasis transmission focus, Wenchi, Ghana

Rogers Nditanchou 1,2,*, Akinola Stephen Oluwole 3, Judith Saare 4, David Agyemang 5, Alexandre Chailloux 6, Sandra Adelaide King 5, Mike Yaw Osei-Atweneboana 7, Richard Selby 6, Joseph Opare 4, Anita Jeyam 6, Stephen Pye 6, Louise Hamill 6, Joseph Nelson Siewe Fodjo 2, Elena Schmidt 6, Veronique Verhoeven 2, Robert Colebunders 2
Editor: Eduardo José Lopes-Torres8
PMCID: PMC12965697  PMID: 41758867

Abstract

Background

Despite more than 27 years of ivermectin mass drug administration (MDA), onchocerciasis transmission persists in the Kwanware-Ottou focus within the Wenchi Health District of Ghana. This study examined participation in ivermectin MDA over time in this transmission focus.

Methods

In March 2024, two months after MDA using the community-directed treatment with ivermectin (CDTI) approach, settlements within Kwanware-Ottou focus were identified through community consultations and satellite imagery. A census was then conducted integrating an ivermectin treatment coverage evaluation survey (CES) to evaluate community participation in CDTI. Data were cleaned using STATA and analysed in R. Descriptive statistics, multiple logistic regression, and ordinal logistic regression were conducted to examine factors associated with point and effective participation in CDTI. Point participation is the percentage of individuals aged 15 + who took ivermectin during the last CDTI, while effective participation refers to those who have taken it at least ten times in past rounds. Pearson correlation was used to assess the relationship between participation and infection prevalence.

Results

Nineteen settlements were identified, with an overall point participation of 80.3% (n = 1461 participants; 95% Confidence Interval, CI:78.6 - 82) for the preceding CDTI. However, 10 settlements had coverage below 80%. Effective participation was only 53.5% (n = 974; CI: 51.2 -55.9), well below the recommended 80%. Participation was influenced by factors such as age, occupation, ethnicity, remoteness, length of stay in the settlement, and mobility (migration). Effective participation was correlated with infection levels, with correlation coefficients of -0.74 for microfilariae prevalence and -0.79 for anti-Ov16 seroprevalence, indicating a strong inverse relationship.

Conclusion

High point participation masks low effective participation and insufficient subdistrict geographical coverage. Conducting exhaustive CES in delineated foci is essential for evaluating CDTI performance, tailoring and strengthening CDTI, and informing alternative strategies to interrupt onchocerciasis transmission. This approach has contributed to effective, context-specific strategies to interrupt transmission in Wenchi and beyond.

Author summary

Onchocerciasis or river blindness transmission persists in parts of Ghana despite decades of treatment with ivermectin via mass drug administration (MDA). This study focused on the Kwanware-Ottou transmission hotspot, where infection persists despite long-term treatment efforts. Using satellite imagery and settlement consultation, we identified 19 settlements and conducted a comprehensive survey to assess both recent and long-term participation in MDA. We found that while many individuals reported recent treatment during the last MDA round (80.3%), only about half had participated in enough rounds to meet elimination targets. Mobile populations and residents of remote settlements were particularly underserved. Our findings show that high reported coverage during a given MDA round can mask critical gaps in effective MDA participation in the long-term, which are strongly linked to ongoing transmission. We recommend evaluating both point and effective MDA participation in areas with inadequate treatment coverage or persistent transmission. This has contributed to commendable, tailored strategies to interrupt onchocerciasis transmission in Wenchi and beyond.

Background

Human onchocerciasis is a neglected tropical disease (NTD) caused by the nematode worm Onchocerca volvulus (O. volvulus). It is transmitted to humans through the bite of an infective blackfly of the genus Simulium, which breeds in fast-flowing rivers and streams [1]. The disease burden is traditionally linked to skin conditions, blindness, and the related stigmas [2]. Recent studies increasingly associated onchocerciasis with neurological complications, particularly onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy (OAE) [3]. A preliminary analysis suggests that up to 128,000 years of life lost to disability (YLD) may be due to epilepsy in onchocerciasis-endemic regions of East and Central Africa [3]. This potentially represents over 13% of the total onchocerciasis morbidity burden [3]. Over 240 million people live in endemic areas, 99% of whom are in the Sub-Saharan African Region, where onchocerciasis is endemic in 26 countries [4]. The high burden of onchocerciasis has driven large-scale intervention efforts that continue till today [57].

Onchocerciasis control in Africa began with the Onchocerciasis Control Programme in West Africa (OCP), launched in 1974 and concluded in 2002 [8]. The programme initially focused on vector control through aerial larviciding in several West African countries, but from the early 1990s ivermectin delivery became increasingly important, in some areas even replacing vector control [9]. The African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC, 1995–2015) later continued intervention through community-directed treatment with ivermectin (CDTI) [8]. In Ghana, control efforts under OCP started in 1974 and included vector control, mobile ivermectin treatment, and later CDTI. From 1997, CDTI became the main strategy [5]. The OCP and APOC programmes led to the successful control of onchocerciasis as a public health problem [10,11]. This has spurred the World Health Organization (WHO) to target elimination of transmission (EoT) in at least 12 countries by 2030 [12]. Following APOC’s closure in 2015, the Expanded Special Project for Elimination of Neglected Tropical Diseases (ESPEN) now supports countries in achieving elimination targets [13]. Ghana has aligned with this goal [6,8]. However, persistent transmission remains in some areas, such as the Kwanware-Ottou community in Wenchi Health District (HD) [14,15].

The main strategy to achieve EoT is through mass drug administration (MDA) using the CDTI approach [16]. Two key indicators are used to evaluate performance of CDTI: geographic coverage and therapeutic coverage [1,17]. Geographic coverage is defined as the proportion of targeted implementation units in which treatment was delivered—such as districts, communities or settlements [16]. To meet elimination goals, geographic coverage must be sustained at 100% [16]. Therapeutic coverage refers to the proportion of eligible population (age ≥ 5 years) in those areas that receives treatment during each MDA round [18]. A minimum of 80% therapeutic coverage is required to interrupt transmission [18]. For EoT, these two CDTI evaluation thresholds are required to be consistently achieved for at least 12–15 annual rounds of ivermectin MDA [12]. This extended treatment period is necessary because ivermectin is microfilaricidal—it kills only the larvae (microfilariae) of O. volvulus, not the adult worms, which can live up to 15 years [19]. Therefore, repeated annual treatments are required to suppress microfilariae levels and gradually reduce transmission until the adult worms die [20].

Operationally, individuals living in onchocerciasis-endemic communities are required to take ivermectin annually for the entire lifespan of the adult worm, which is at least 10 years [20]. To assess this, the WHO recommends that coverage evaluation surveys (CES) be conducted every 1–3 years at the evaluation unit level (often health district) to monitor the effectiveness of CDTI and ensure programmatic coverage targets are met [17,21]. However, programmes struggle to implement CES as often as desired [21]. In addition, reporting coverage of the most recent MDA round in CES gives a false impression of continuous individual participation over the years. Cognisant of this, APOC commissioned a study to evaluate individual continuous participation after eight years (1998–2005) of CDTI [22]. At the time, eight years of treatment was considered the benchmark for transitioning from control to elimination [23]. However, since that study, little attention has been given to evaluating long-term individual adherence to CDTI.

Besides individual-level participation, there is the challenge of evaluating geographical coverage during CES and aligning it with the EoT goal. This is because: firstly, evaluation units often do not align with the transmission focus [15,24]. Secondly, although programmes report community level coverage, geographical coverage is often not assessed during CES. Thirdly, the definition of a community is neither clear nor uniform and there is no agreed approach to assessing programme reports of geographic coverage. Fourthly, endemic areas are dynamic over time and the usual practice of conducting CES at the district level inadequately reflects performance at smaller units. These inadequacies in coverage in small, remote and newly established settlements, most of the time at high risk of infection [25], are often obscured. Indeed, programmes almost always report 100% geographical coverage (https://espen.afro.who.int/dashboards). These inadequate reports of small settlements coverage [26] pose a significant challenge to EoT [27,28].

To address the dual challenges of evaluating individual participation over the past years and subdistrict geographical coverage, CES need to be adapted particularly where the transmission focus has been delineated. This will align intervention with current onchocerciasis epidemiology and elimination ambition. This paper examines one of such adapted CES. The findings are useful for intervention adjustment and for modellers to review current EoT models.

Methods

Ethical consideration

Ethical clearance for this study was obtained from the Ghana Health Service Ethics Review Committee (No GHS-ERC: 006/09/23). Additionally, administrative authorization was granted by the Director General of Ghana Health Service. Community consultations, mobilization, and sensitization were conducted, during which verbal consent were obtained from community leaders. Informed consent from individuals, and assent for those younger than 18 years, were obtained prior to data collection.

Study setting

The study was conducted in the Kwanware-Ottou onchocerciasis transmission focus within the Wenchi HD of Ghana in March 2024. Impact evaluations in the Kwanware-Ottou community revealed persistent transmission [15]. A microfilarial (mf) prevalence of 5% (4/72) was found in 2012 and 26.7% (8/30) in 2017 among adults aged 20 years and above. Additionally, an anti-Ov16 seroprevalence of 38.1% (8/21) was found in children aged 5–10 years in the 2017 evaluation, indicating new infections [15]. Table 1 summarizes the documented historical epidemiologic profile of communities within Wenchi HD before 2021.

Table 1. Microfilariae (mf) and seroprevalence of onchocerciasis over time in settlements within Wenchi health District [15].

Anti-Ov16 Seroprevalence1, % mf prevalence2, %
Settlements 2017 19803 1989 2000 2012 2017
Akete 2.5 (2/80) 54.4 (153/281) 2.7(6/221) 1.3 (1/72)
Abotereye 33.2 (88/265)
Adamukura 32.2 (38/118)
Wurompo 23.5 (104/443)
Yoyoano 20.0 (56/280) 13.4(15/112)
Kwanware &

Ottou
38.1 (8/21) 48.1(102/212) 0.7(2/290) 5.6% (4/72) 26.7 (8/30)
Tainso 40.7(127/312) 15.6(17(109) 1.3 (1/72)

1Among children between 5 and 10 years of age; 2among adult aged ≥20 years; “–” not available/not conducted. 3Vector control in the Tain River began in 1976 under the OCP, so the prevalence measured in 1980 may not represent the true baseline level. This suggests hyperendemicity and high transmission potential at baseline.

We conducted a follow-up investigation in 2021 and found a persisting and disturbing mf prevalence of 36.6% (8/24; 95% confidence interval (CI): 19.9% - 56.0%) in Ottou and 29.2% (6/24; CI: 14.6% - 49.8%) in Kwanware. Furthermore, the investigation delineated the transmission focus to be a 10 kilometre (km) radius around Ottou, based on observed infection levels in both human and blackfly [15]. This is consistent with other studies and WHO guidance that suggest a 10–12 km radius as the smallest epidemiological unit for onchocerciasis transmission [1,15,20,29].

The Kwanware-Ottou transmission focus covers parts of Subsinso, Nsawkaw, and Boase sub-districts in the Wenchi, Tain, and Banda HDs, respectively. See Fig 1. These districts are situated in the Bono Region of Ghana and collectively fall within the Tano-Ankobra Onchocerciasis Operational Transmission Zone (OTZ) [26,30]. Cash crop farming including cashew nuts and fruits is the main occupation in of the people living the area. Additionally, artisanal gold and charcoal mining is a major activity in the Nsawkaw sub-district. Cattle rearing is practiced mainly in the Subinso and Boase areas.

Fig 1. Map of the study area showing a 10 km radius onchocerciasis transmission focus area around Ottou community.

Fig 1

Parasitology findings, shown as pie charts, indicate the proportion of individuals positive for microfilariae (mf+) detected via skin snip (March 2021). Serology findings are represented by colour-graded squares, with size and shade reflecting Ov16 antibody prevalence (March 2021). Star symbols mark blackfly collection sites, with dark blue stars indicating detection of infective L3 detecting (October 2020). Coloured circles show locations where blackfly larvae were found. The size is proportional to the number of larvae detected. This map has been modified from our previous publication [15]. The base map uses national and district administrative boundaries from the geoBoundaries Global Database (https://www.geoboundaries.org/countryDownloads.html; license: CC BY 4.0, https://www.geoboundaries.org/metadata.html). Additional data sources include HydroATLAS hydrography (https://www.hydrosheds.org/hydroatlas; CC BY 4.0), manually digitized roads from high-resolution satellite imagery, and primary field-collected population and survey data. The map was created in ArcGIS Pro software using only openly licensed datasets.

The area is drained by a dense river network, with two main rivers, Subin and Tain, having actual or potential blackfly breeding sites [15]. Vector control began in the Tain River in 1976 under the OCP, and later in the Subin River in 1992 as part of the South-Eastern Extension of OCP—though activities may have started slightly earlier [30,31]. Vector control in both rivers ceased in 1996 [30,31]. Entomological monitoring reveals a significant progress in transmission dynamics over time. At Tainso village near the River Tain, the Annual Biting Rate (ABR) declined from approximately 3,500 bites per person per year in 1974 to fewer than 200 by 1980, with the Annual Transmission Potential (ATP) nearing zero. Subinso village maintained an ABR of approximately 3,000 and an ATP of 150 until 1989, with reductions observed only after 1990 [32].

Annual ivermectin MDA was introduced in 1994 in settlements surrounding both rivers Tain and Subin. Biannual MDA commenced earlier in Tain Districts in 2009 (Banda being part of Tain at the time) and later expanded to Wenchi Municipality in 2018 [15,30,31]. However, like most public health programmes, MDA was suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in 2 missed rounds in 2020.

Our 2021 study reported blackfly infectivity rates of 5.9‰ (per thousand) (1/169; 95% CI: 0.1–32.5) in Kwanware and 6.7‰ (2/300; 95% CI: 0.8–23.9) in Ottou, along with the highest blackfly biting rates, ranging from 5,000–6,000 Monthly Biting Rates (MBRs) [15]. These MBRs, though not directly comparable to historical baselines, suggest a rebound in blackfly populations following cessation of vector control. MBRs at this level, especially with infectivity rates above 1‰, can yield ATPs exceeding 100–200 L3/person/year—sufficient to sustain transmission [33]. In such settings, mf prevalence may range from 15% to 40%, particularly where ivermectin coverage is suboptimal or interrupted [1,33]. Indeed, this align with our recent observation in the Kwanware -Ottou focus, as previously noted [15].

Study design

This was an exploratory study with both cross-sectional and retrospective components. The main outcomes were point (most recent) and past recall of swallowing ivermectin (participation) during CDTI as a function of relevant covariates. The study was nested within a holistic approach aimed at improving CDTI uptake in the 10 km radius area of Kwanware-Ottou focus [15].

Study procedure

Data collection followed a two-step process. First, all settlements within the defined focus were identified. Then the CES questionnaire (S1 Text) was administered through a door-to-door approach to all households within the focal area. We preferred the term ‘settlement’ (to community) and defined it as a geographic location where people live. This definition highlights geographical location and considers any physical space, no matter how small.

Step 1: Identification of settlements through community consultation and Geographic Information (GIS) technology.

GIS technology was used to exhaustively identify settlements in the transmission area. To do this, a recent satellite image of the area, captured in October 2023 with a resolution of 75 cm and covering 271 square kilometres was obtained from Apollo Mapping (https://apollomapping.com/). The satellite image represented 86.3% of the study area. Freely available but low-resolution and old (5 or more years) satellite images of the remaining area were used to complete the coverage. Structures indicative of potential settlements, including mining ones, were identified and mapped based on settlement and mining-related features from previous studies [15,34].

Following the GIS mapping, a series of cascaded consultation meetings, starting from districts through to subdistricts and settlements including hamlets, were held prior to field data collection. During these meetings, dates for settlement-level census and CES were agreed upon with settlement leaders and other members. Additionally, satellite images of the area were presented to settlement dwellers to aid in identification of possible missed neighbouring settlements. Ten trained data collectors verified the mapped potential settlements from 16-24 March 2024. The verified households were grouped as settlements based on their clustering and assigned names as guided by the settlement members. Neighbouring settlements, including for miners, herders, fishermen, and any other groups not initially listed, were searched through inquiry and subsequently included if found.

Step 2. Census, including a treatment coverage evaluation survey.

Alongside verification, the team conducted a census one month after the preceding CDTI in all areas identified as settlements based on outcome of consultation and field verification of potential satellite image identified settlements. They also recorded neighbouring settlements and evidence of mining activities and associated miners, including them if not already included. All individuals in the area were targeted for enumeration with relevant variables of interest recorded (see S1 Text).

The primary outcome of interest was individual participation in ivermectin MDA, defined as swallowing ivermectin tablets during CDTI rounds over the past years among individuals aged 15 years and older. The 15-year age cut-off was chosen to ensure that individuals have had the opportunity to participate in at least 10 yearly rounds of CDTI starting from their eligibility age of 5. “Participation” is an inclusive terminology that shifts the responsibility from solely the beneficiary to all stakeholders, including programme implementers and community drug distributors (CDDs). We defined point participation as swallowing ivermectin in the most recent CDTI and cumulative participation as numbers of times an individual had ever participated in CDTI. There are many terminologies used in reference to cumulative participation [35]. Here, cumulative participation refers to what Maddren et al (2023) described as “individual longitudinal compliance”, which is how regular an individual had participated in CDTI over time [35].

Since onchocerciasis elimination requires at least 10 years of annual treatment [1,20,36], we defined effective participation as participating in ivermectin MDA at least 10 times as a proxy to 10 consecutive years. While the “≥10 times” participation serves as a proxy for 10 years of treatment in a context of annual MDA, it may not precisely reflect the 10-year duration in our study site due to the shift to biannual treatment from 2018. Any participation less than 10 times was classified as non-effective for the purpose of elimination. Response options for CDTI participation were structured to aid recall as follows: “never or once”, “2–4 times”, “5–9 times”, and “≥10 times”. These were later reclassified as “<10” and “≥10 times” corresponding to non-effective and effective participation, respectively. However, each of the shorter participation categories was also explored to estimate the magnitude and direction of the correlation with infection prevalence determined in the 2021 epidemiological survey in the area [15], and to validate the “≥10 times” effective participation cut-off.

Explanatory variables of interest included:

  • 1. Movement: Whether individuals travelled outside the settlement for at least one month in the past 12 months (also used as a proxy for longer past movement).

  • 2. Length of stay in the settlement: The rationale here is that individual’s participation and transmission/infection are dependent on their length of stay. This is defined as number of years a participant has been living in the settlement, categorized as “0-5 years”, “6-10 years”, and “above 10 years”. This categorisation aimed to aid recall among participants

  • 3. Settlement: Grouped as main (accessible established settlements) and satellite (often remote and sometimes temporal).

  • 4. Demographic variables: Age, sex, ethnicity, education, and occupation

Statistical analysis

Survey data was downloaded from the Commcare platform and cleaned using STATA statistical software (StataCorp. 2023. Stata Statistical Software: Release 18. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC). R version 4.4.1 was subsequently used for analysis [37]. CDTI participation proportions were calculated as percentages. The McNemar test of paired outcomes was used to compare the proportions of point and effective participation.

Before conducting regression analysis, key statistical assumptions were verified. For multicollinearity, variance inflation factors (VIFs) were computed. None of the included variables had a VIF ≥ 5 (all < 2), indicating negligible collinearity [38]. We confirmed that sample counts for each category were within the acceptable range (8–25) [39], ensuring robustness. We also ran a sensitivity analysis by comparing regression models with and without merging a small category (Mining [unauthorised], n = 19) into a similar group (Cattle Rearing). Results were consistent across models, with minimal changes in coefficients and model fit. This supports keeping the categories separate due to their theoretical relevance.

Multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate the association (odds ratios, OR) between co-variates and point and effective participation in CDTI. Additionally, ordinal outcomes were derived as 0, 1, 2 and 3 corresponding to “Never or once”, “2-4”, “5-9”, and “≥10 times” of participation. Prior to this regression, the proportional odds assumption was verified using the likelihood ratio test (LRT) ensuring it was met. A multivariable ordinal logistic regression was then conducted to predict the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of change from a lower to a higher category. McFadden’s pseudo-R2 statistics was used to compute the percentage variation explained by logistic regression models. P-values less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

All participants were included in the logistic regression analysis, regardless of their length of residence in the community. This approach reflects the epidemiological importance of CDTI participation: individuals present in the community contribute to transmission dynamics and are expected to receive treatment. Therefore, participation evaluation was not restricted by duration of residency.

To examine the relationship between CDTI participation and infection prevalence, a dataset was prepared with variables for different level of cumulative participation and infection metrics (mf and anti-Ov16 seroprevalence observed in 2021 across settlements in the study area [15]. Correlation analyses were conducted using the Pearson method to assess the strength and direction of the relationships [40].

Results

Identification of settlements through settlement consultations and Geographic Information (GIS) technology

Combining GIS and census data, 19 named settlements were identified. Ten of the 19 settlements were identified during settlement consultation. These were remote hamlets with poor accessibility and often merged into bigger settlements for CDTI. See Fig 2 for the map of the settlements which also shows point and effective participation. There were also many unoccupied temporal shelters usually occupied periodically by cattle rearers/herders and artisanal miners during farming and mining season respectively.

Fig 2. Map of the study area.

Fig 2

The 10 km radius delimits the focus of persistent infection around Kwanware-Ottou community. Serological and parasitological surveys were conducted in February and March 2021, while entomological surveys—including fly collection, dissection, and breeding site assessment—were carried out in October 2020 [15]. The base map uses national and district administrative boundaries from the geoBoundaries Global Database (https://www.geoboundaries.org/countryDownloads.html; license: CC BY 4.0, https://www.geoboundaries.org/metadata.html). Additional data sources include HydroATLAS hydrography (https://www.hydrosheds.org/hydroatlas; CC BY 4.0), manually digitized roads from high-resolution satellite imagery, and primary field-collected population and survey data. The map was created in ArcGIS Pro software using only openly licensed datasets.

Community-directed treatment with ivermectin (CDTI) coverage

Of the 3,338 individuals surveyed, only those aged ≥15 years who provided valid information on past ivermectin intake were retained to allow a consistent comparison of point and historical participation. Consequently, 1,819 participants were included in the analysis. Their median age was 30 (interquartile range, IQR: 22–45) years, with 929 (51.1%) males and 890 (48.9%) females. In all settlements, effective participation was (almost always significantly) lower than the point participation (Table 2). Overall point participation in the most recent ivermectin MDA was high (80.3%; 95% Confidence Interval, CI:78.6 - 82), but effective participation was substantially lower at 53.5% (95% CI: 51.2, 55.9) (p < 0.001). Ten settlements fell below the 80% recommended point participation threshold, with settlements having remote and mobile populations particularly underserved. More than half of the participants (65.3%), essentially the young population (aged 15–24 years), has an effective coverage of 50.8%. Ottou has very high effective participation (90.2%) which was very close to its point participation (97.6%). The effective participation in Ottou exceeds the upper outlier threshold of 88.2% (defined as mean + /-2 Standard Deviation (SD); mean = 53.6%, SD = 11.7). Thus, effective participation in Ottou is an outlier from the statical standpoint. Without Ottou, the overall effective coverage drops slightly to 52.7%. However, neighbouring Kwanware has a much lower effective coverage (40.4%). The two settlements (Kwanware and Ottou) are located near each other and share similar population characteristics and infection levels [15].

Table 2. Comparison between effective and point participations by settlement.

Settlements Total, n Effective participation, % Point participation, % p-value
Overall 1819 53.5 80.3 <0.001
Ampiani 27 44.4 96.3 <0.001
Ata Akura 19 52.6 78.9 0.07
Boase Tainano 163 41.1 73.6 <0.001
Branam state farms 47 38.3 83.0 <0.001
Gyabaa 24 62.5 70.8 0.683
Kwadom Boase 104 65.4 74.0 0.233
Kwadom Joe-boy 17 88.2 88.2 1
Kwadom Nsuta 82 41.5 76.8 <0.001
Kwaedenden 23 72.7 77.3 1
Papaase 23 39.1 34.8 1
Winamda 52 59.6 76.9 0.095
Yibong Akura 11 72.7 81.8 1
Abotareye 232 46.1 85.3 <0.001
Branam 446 57.4 78.0 <0.001
Kwanware 52 40.4 61.5 0.006
Ottou* 41 90.2 97.6 0.243
Subinso 1 353 58.1 88.1 <0.001
Tainano 103 43.7 88.3 <0.001

*Ottou reported an effective participation rate of 90.2%, which exceeds the upper outlier threshold of 88.2% - define as mean + /-2 Standard Deviation, SD (mean = 53.6%, SD = 11.7).

Table 3 presents recent mf and seroprevalence levels obtained in 2021 [15], along with effective participation rates as observed in this study. Meanwhile Fig 3 shows correlation between effective participation and the infection prevalence. A strong negative correlation was observed between effective participation in CDTI and infection prevalence in 2021. For mf prevalence, the correlation coefficient was - 0.74, indicating that settlements with higher effective participation in CDTI experienced significantly lower mf prevalence. Likewise, for anti-Ov16 seroprevalence, the correlation coefficient was - 0.79, demonstrating an even stronger inverse relationship, where low effective participation was associated with higher anti-Ov16 prevalence. In contrast, lower participation categories (2–4 and 0–1 rounds) were positively correlated with infection indices, particularly microfilarial prevalence.

Table 3. Settlement level onchocerciasis infection prevalence [15] and community-directed treatment with ivermectin (CDTI) effective participation.

Settlement Infection indices, % (95% Confidence Intervals), (2021) Cumulative participation level, % (2024)
Settlement Microfilaria Anti-Ov16 ≥10 times 5-9 times 2-4 times 0-1 time
Ottou 40.0 (21.4–62.0) 8.3 (1.2–41.4) 90.2 (37/41) 7.3 (3/41) 0 (0/41) 2.4 (1/41)
Kwanware 30.0 (14.1–52.7) 13.3 (1.3–40.6) 40.4 (21/52) 19.2 (10/52) 9.6 (5/52) 30.8 (16/52)
Tainano 20.0 (11.7–32.0) 13.0 (4.3–33.6) 43.7 (45/103) 26.2 (27/103) 26.2 (27/103) 3.9 (4/103)
Boase Tainano 9.0 (4.1–18.5) 19.0 (6.9–42.8) 41.1 (67/163) 26.4 (43/163) 25.2 (41/163) 7.4 (12/163)
Abotareye 4.3 (1.6–10.9) 0 (0–0.8) 46.1 (107/232) 37.9 (88/232) 12.9 (30/232) 3.0 (7/232)
Branam 3.1 (1.0–9.2) 1.2 (0.2–7.8) 57.4 (256/446) 27.1 (121/446) 9.9 (44/446) 5.6 (25/446)
Subinso 1 0 (0–3.8) 1.3 (0.2–8.9) 58.1 (205/353) 30.9 (109/353) 9.3 (33/353) 1.7 (6/353)

Recent infection levels were available only for seven settlements within the study area [15]. Ottou was excluded from correlation analysis because effective participation rate of 90.2% was determined to be an outlier. Microfilarial prevalence was assessed among adults aged ≥20 years using two skin snips per person, collected from the iliac crests. The snips were examined using classic microscopy to detect the presence of Onchocerca volvulus microfilariae. Anti-Ov16 IgG4 seroprevalence was measured in children aged 5–9 years using dried blood spot (DBS) samples, analyzed with the Standard Diagnostics (SD) Ov16 rapid diagnostic test (RDT) to detect IgG4 antibodies specific to O. volvulus.

Fig 3. Microfilaria and Ov-16 Prevalence: Correlation with Ivermectin Participation Level.

Fig 3

(a) Microfilaria vs ≥ 10 times Participation; (b) Ov-16 vs ≥ 10 times Participation; (c) Microfilaria vs 5–9 times Participation; (d) Ov-16 vs 5–9 times Participation; (e) Microfilaria vs 2–4 times Participation; (f) Ov-16 vs 2–4 times Participation; (g) Microfilaria vs 0–1 time Participation; (h) Ov-16 vs 0–1 time Participation.

Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model indicates that being of older age slightly but significantly increases the odds of taking ivermectin more frequently (OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 1.05-1.07). In addition, individuals living in Nsawkaw (OR = 2.12; 95% CI:1.31-3.43) and Subinso (OR = 2.12; 95% CI:1.48-3.03) sub-districts, compared to Banda, have significantly higher odds of being in the higher category of ivermectin participation (see Table 4). An individual’s length of stay also influences the odds, with shorter stays significantly associated with a lower likelihood of being in a higher category compared to ≥10 years stay category. For ethnicity, those belonging to the Dagaaba and Fulani groups have significantly lower odds of being in a higher category of ivermectin participation with respect to Akan ethnic group. Likewise, miners and students or other occupations have significantly lower odds of being in the higher categories of cumulative participation compared to farmers. The model is most stable for change from 2 (5–9 times) to 3 (10 times) cumulative participation categories.

Table 4. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression showing the association between frequency of participation in community-directed treatment with ivermectin and covariates.

Characteristics Predictor category Total, n Participation %

(95% CI)
Adjusted OR (95% CI)
Age* Individual age 1819 80.3 (78.6- 82.0) 1.06 (1.05 -1.07)
Sex Female 890 79.7 (76.8–81.9) Reference
Male 929 81.6 (79.0–83.6) 0.92 (0.75–1.14)
Ethnic group** Akan 237 82.5 (76.1–87.3) Reference
Dagaaba 1029 78.8 (76.2–81.0) 0.57 (0.39–0.82)
Fulani 48 68.4 (54.2–79.2) 0.17 (0.08–0.33)
Mo 143 80.5 (73.1–85.9) 1.32 (0.79–2.21)
Others 361 86.8 (83.2–89.5) 0.63 (0.42–0.94)
Sub-District Banda 175 76.5 (69.7–81.5) Reference
Nsawkaw 125 88.6 (82.6–92.6) 2.12 (1.31–3.43)
Subinso 1519 80.4 (78.1–82.0) 2.12 (1.48–3.03)
Occupation*** Farming 1224 80.1 (77.7–81.9) Reference
Cattle rearing 60 82.5 (73.0–89.0) 1.35 (0.75–2.41)
Mining (authorised) 16 62.7 (40.5–80.1) 0.36 (0.13–0.97)
Sale/office/civil servants 224 84.8 (79.5–88.5) 1.02 (0.73–1.43)
Student/other 219 81.1 (75.4–85.3) 0.56 (0.40–0.77)
Unemployed 76 78.4 (68.1–85.7) 0.72 (0.43–1.20)
Education Never attended school 1052 80.4 (77.8–82.6) Reference
Ever attended school 767 81.0 (77.6–83.5) 0.78 (0.61–1.0)
Settlement category Main 1031 83.0 (80.1–84.9) Reference
Satellites 788 77.8 (74.2–80.5) 0.94 (0.73–1.21)
Movement Not travelled outside district 1666 82.8 (80.8–84.2) Reference
Travelled outside district 114 63.9 (55.4–71.7) 1.16 (0.76–1.7)
Visitor 39 47.9 (31.5–65.4) 0.65 (0.33–1.3)
Length of stay ≥10 years 1231 86.4 (84.0–88.1) Reference
0–4 years 357 62.8 (57.2–67.6) 0.06 (0.04–0.08)
5–9 years 231 80.3 (74.7–84.4) 0.23 (0.17–0.3)

*Age was analysed as a continuous variable. **One missing. ***No participants reported fishing as their occupation. Ordinal scale included: ≥ 10 times, 5–9 times, 2–4 times and 0–1 time. Coverage is descriptive only and not included in the regression.

The associations observed for effective and point participation were consistent in direction as the same covariates tended to increase or decrease the odds of participation across both models (See Table 5), though the strength and statistical significance varied. Travel category is an exception. The effective participation model explains a greater proportion of the variation (McFadden’s pseudo-R² = 34.2%) suggesting stronger predictive performance in comparison to the point participation model (pseudo-R² = 14.7%).

Table 5. Factors associated with ivermectin participation.

Effective participation Point participation
Characteristics Variables Adjusted OR

(95% CI)
Adjusted OR (95% CI)
Sex Female Reference Reference
Male 1.10 (0.85-1.42) 1.21(0.94-1.5)
Age* Age 1.07 (1.06-1.08) 1.01(1.00-1.02)
Ethnic group Akan Reference Reference
Dagaaba 0.51 (0.33-0.77) 0.67 (0.39-1.15)
Fulani 0.08 (0.02-0.29) 0.33(0.13 - 0.90)
Mo 1.33 (0.75-2.36) 1.03 (0.50 -2.11)
Others 0.60 (0.38-0.96) 1.2 (0.66 - 2.17)
Main occupation Farming Reference Reference
Cattle rearing 1.86 (0.88-3.90) 1.11 (0.57 - 2.19)
Mining 0.39 (0.10-1.51) 0.26 (0.10 -0.72)
Sale/office/civil servants 1.13 (0.75-1.69) 1.60 (1.04 - 2.46)
Student 0.41 (0.27-0.64) 0.99 (0.66 -1.48)
Unemployed 0.67 (0.35-1.31) 0.70 (0.38 -1.28)
Travel No travel outside district Reference Reference
Travelled outside district 1.35 (0.81-2.25) 0.26 (0.17 – 0.38)
Visitor 1.65 (0.54-5.06) 0.18 (0.08 - 0.40)
Duration of stay in the settlement ≥10 years Reference Reference
0-4 years 0.07 (0.04-0.10) 0.23 (0.17 - 0.31)
5-9 years 0.15 (0.11-0.22) 0.63 (0.44 - 0.91)
Education Yes Reference Reference
No 0.91 (0.68-1.22) 1.04 (0.79 - 1.39)
Sub-District Boase Reference Reference
Nsawkaw 1.92 (1.06-3.49) 2.55 (1.35 - 4.80)
Subinso 1.96 (1.28-3.00) 1.27 (0.83 - 1.94)
Settlement

category
Main Reference Reference
Satellites 1.09 (0.80-1.49) 0.70 (0.51 - 0.95)

*Age was analysed as a continuous variable.

Discussion

This study comprehensively investigated both cumulative and point CDTI participation through a census in the Kwanware-Ottou onchocerciasis transmission focus within the Wenchi HD of Ghana. The use of settlement knowledge and GIS ensured the inclusion of all settlements within the delineated transmission focus [15]. The exhaustive sampling approach aided accurate and precise estimates of coverage [41]. In addition, this approach provided a detailed understanding of population location and demographic characteristics as part of the investigation into a persistent onchocerciasis transmission focus [15,41]. This aligns with the growing call to accelerate elimination by adapting onchocerciasis interventions to local context [15,20,26,42]. While CES are often conducted at the district level with random sampling, impact evaluations typically target all individuals in riverine areas. Although this CES approach was appropriate in the early stages of the programme implementation, it now requires adaptation and alignment to impact evaluation thus reflecting the current reality—onchocerciasis transmission has now shrunk to localized hotspot areas.

Although none of the 19 identified settlements had zero-point participation, insufficient participation was reported in 10 of them. Eight settlements had point participation between 70% and 80%, one had 61.5%, and another 34.8%. These coverage estimates warrant cautious interpretation. Because some settlements have very small populations, the exclusion or mistargeting of just a few households can markedly affect the calculated coverage, potentially overstating or understating true participation. This issue is particularly relevant in the context of elimination efforts that aim to ensure no one is left behind.

The settlements with suboptimal point participation were typically remote, located close to known vector breeding sites, inhabited by highly mobile populations and not identified as separate identities in the CDTI register. These factors challenged the already insufficient logistic and financial resources and further constrained the ability to reach the people for treatment. The settlements with insufficient point participation could have been missed given the 80.3% overall point participation if not of the census approach. This demonstrates that the usual non-exhaustive sampling during CES might hide pockets of insufficient coverage sustaining transmission. Hence, exhaustive sampling CES would be appropriate when conducting evaluation in endemic communities with known persistent transmission like our study area. In the context of onchocerciasis elimination, these are critical locations to reach to clear transmission.

Effective participation was 53.5%, lower than the 80.3% point participation for the most recent MDA in the area and the recommended 80% therapeutic coverage. In addition, more than half of the participants, essentially the dynamic young population, has an effective coverage of less than 55%. A study mandated by APOC in 2011 found a similar result with only 44.9% of individuals having taken ivermectin 6–8 times out of 8 CDTI rounds implemented [22]. The 44.9% in this study was similarly much lower than the preceding MDA reported coverage of 74%. This demonstrates that the high point participation does not reflect individual consistent participation over time. This finding most likely explains the disparity between observed and expected transmission indices including the persistent transmission in the Kwanware Ottou focus [15,43,44].

Evaluating CDTI participation using a 10-round cut-off aligns with both statistical strength and biological plausibility. Statistical robustness was demonstrated by the ordinal multiple logistic regression model, which was most stable when shifting from the ‘5–9 times’ to the ‘≥10 times’ treatment categories. In addition, the multiple logistic regression explained 34.2% of the variation in effective participation—substantially higher than the 14.5% explained by point participation and the 8% reported by Breiger et al [22]. Biological plausibility was supported by correlation analyses, which revealed a strong inverse relationship between cumulative ivermectin intake and onchocerciasis infection. Participation in 5–9 and ≥10 rounds was negatively correlated with microfilariae and anti-Ov16 prevalence, with the strongest effect in the ≥ 10 times participation group (-0.74 for mf and -0.79 for anti-Ov16 seroprevalence). These findings align with those of Wanji et al in Cameroon, who reported highest mf prevalence (59.7%) in their zero-treatment group and the lowest (33.9%) among those treated seven or more times (OR = 2.8; 95% CI: 2.09–3.74; P < 0.001) [45]. The implication is that programmes should incorporate evaluation of cumulative participation during CES and adopt the “10-times” cutoff when assessing effective participation. This strengthens Wanji et al’s suggestion that evaluation of cumulative participation (adherence) should be the first step of, or at least conducted together with, impact evaluation since there is correlation between infection and cumulative participation [45].

The correlation analysis equally indicated that participation in five or fewer rounds may falsely suggest consistent and impactful adherence. Practically, if ≥80% of the population has not taken ivermectin at least five times, transmission reduction is unlikely. Put differently, regardless of coverage level, achieving elimination of transmission (EoT) is unrealistic when most individuals have participated in fewer than five rounds. As earlier mention, regression and correlation results support using “<10 times” and “≥10 times” as key thresholds, with 0–4 and 5–9 as intermediary categories. An additional “0 or 0-1 time” group should be added given the growing interest in measuring systematic refusals of ivermectin, i.e., individuals never treated in MDA programmes [46,47].

The categorization of the number of past ivermectin intakes does not review individuals’ exposure to MDA nor pattern of interruptions in treatment—whether consecutive or intermittent - which could allow adult worms to resume microfilariae production and sustain transmission. Recently, distribution of ivermectin in Ghana was jeopardized by the suspension of 2 rounds of MDA during 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic-related restrictions. Although contemporary studies and models did not show a significant impact from brief suspensions of CDTI, the debate is not completely settled, given that it takes 12–24 months for new adult worms to establish and begin producing microfilariae [19,48]. The combination of MDA consecutive or intermittent interruption and low effective coverage may amplify negative impacts on elimination progress in Ghana and beyond [49,50]. There is the need for further investigation to assess the number and consistency of treatments, alongside contextual factors such as blackfly and human population dynamics, to determine the transmission break point. In the context of programmatic monitoring through CES, asking how many times an individual has not taken ivermectin in the last 10 rounds/years can be considered for triangulation and assessment of consecutiveness or intermittency.

Ottou settlement shows both high point and effective participations in ivermectin treatment (90.2% and 97.6%, respectively; Table 2), yet infection levels remain high (40.0%; Table 3). Although statistical analysis identified Ottou’s effective coverage as an outlier and it was excluded from the correlation analysis, this finding warrants careful interpretation. Onchocerciasis transmission is highly heterogeneous [51], unlike infections such as influenza where exposure is more uniform [52]. The heterogenicity in Ottou and surrounding is likely due to high biting rates, as previously noted [15], combined with the lower coverage in nearby settlements [15]. Alternatively, reliability of reported participation might have been affected by the very small sample size—only 41 individuals—along with potential biases such as recall bias or conflation between recent CDTI round and those conducted in the more distant past. However, these explanations are not supported by observations in neighbouring Kwanware, which shares similar population characteristics but has much lower effective participation and similarly high infection levels (Table 3). Therefore, it appears that the most likely explanation is conflation and/or biases—most notably social desirability bias [53].

Factors associated with point and effective participation were similar in magnitude and direction, although to varying extents and degrees of statistical significance except for the travel category. This is expected since effective participation is a cumulative evaluation of point participation. Though the individuals may not be the same, the factors may be. Age, working in an office or as a retailer, and living in the Nsawkaw sub-district were associated with higher odds of effective participation. The observed difference for the travel category likely reflects the cumulative nature of effective participation. Individuals who travel frequently may still be present during some MDA rounds and thus report recent (point) participation, but their mobility reduces the likelihood of consistent participation over time. Increasing age means increasing frequency of exposure to MDA and having an occupation that requires less mobility, and migration means a higher likelihood of being met by CDDs. Sub-district differences may be due to different programmatic endeavours at this level, as well as the different characteristics of participants. For instance, the settlers in the Nsawkaw sub-district are mainly farmers, whereas Boase settlers are mainly miners who are equally mobile and additionally avoid people from the government as their activity is illegal [54]. Factors linked to low participation include belonging to the Fulani ethnic group, being miners (‘galamsay’ -unauthorised), living in satellite settlements, being mobile, and having a short stay in the settlements. This is expected since all these characteristics make it difficult to implement CDTI. The factors influencing effectiveness are most likely lasting meaning a sustained effort is required to address them for a lasting impact. While these factors highlight beneficiary characteristics, aspects of the intervention programme—such as periodicity, reach, equity, and logistics—also warrant attention. A critical issue is determining whether suboptimal coverage in certain settlements is driven more by limited willingness to take ivermectin in that round or by CDDs not reaching all households, either because they moved too quickly or inadvertently missed some homes. As discussed earlier, both mechanisms operate simultaneously, although their effects differ between settlements. Future assessments of CDTI coverage should explicitly consider these interacting factors.

Improving ivermectin coverage among highly mobile populations—particularly small-scale, often informal or illegal miners—requires efforts tailored to their unique challenges. Engaging occupational leaders and aligning MDA schedules with work cycles may further improve access and participation among these underserved groups. We recommend synchronizing MDA delivery with mining activities, potentially through mobile or peer-led distribution at mining sites. Additionally, the use of satellite imagery and GIS, as demonstrated in this study, can enhance the identification of transient settlements and inform targeted planning. We noted unoccupied shelters located within the delineated transmission focal area demonstrating transient settlements. Similar mobile populations, transient settlements, and transmission foci likely exist across the broader Tano–Ankobra and other Operational Transmission Zones (OTZs). Without wider implementation of adapted strategies—such as exhaustive CES and tailored interventions for mobile groups—these areas could pose a risk of reinfection or persistent transmission in regions of Ghana where onchocerciasis elimination is nearly achieved.

The high biting rates recently reported in Kwanware and Ottou—up to 6,000 MBR - reflect a rebound in blackfly populations following the cessation of vector control [15,32]. This, alongside low effective coverage, contributes to an increased force of transmission in affected settlements [15,31]. Similar entomological indices in Togo were historically linked to holoendemicity, with mf prevalence reaching 90% in some sites at baseline. Togo achieved near-elimination through a combination of biannual ivermectin and vector control interventions [55]. Although Ghana implemented vector control during the OCP era, including in rivers near Kwanware and Ottou [31], no recent vector control activities have been reported in this focus. Given the resurgence in blackfly populations and the persistence of transmission despite biannual CDTI, reintroducing focal vector control—such as ground larviciding or the “Slash and Clear” method—may be warranted [15,56]. These strategies, when combined with improved CDTI and monitoring, would accelerate progress toward elimination. Additionally, follow-up entomological and parasitological surveys after several uninterrupted years of biannual CDTI would provide critical insights into transmission trends and the potential need for intensified interventions [57].

Stolk et al.‘s modelling study suggests that treatment can be stopped at the ‘pixel’ level, corresponding to a settlement [20]. However, they acknowledge that such a unit is too small for decision-making. This thinking aligns with findings that the smallest transmission focus spans a 10–12 km radius [15,24], often covering several settlements. Therefore, it appears that the smallest unit for making sustainable decisions is the delineated focus corresponding to the smallest epidemiological unit in onchocerciasis transmission zones. This aligns with the NTD 2030 roadmap and the growing call to localize actions to accelerate onchocerciasis elimination. Investigations, evaluations including CES, and interventions will need to consider this epidemiological reality. Micro-mapping of onchocerciasis transmission residual foci stemming from signal from impact or EoT evaluation is urgently needed to direct effort at this time of funding dilemma [58]. Or else we risk losing the achievement hitherto. The impact of such consideration would even be more assuring and enduring in places where the surrounding areas have received treatment for many years, resulting in a lower/no risk of reinvasion [26], or where there is an adequate buffer zone (>20 km) separating neighbouring foci [42]. Furthermore, model should be developed for elimination of onchocerciasis in delineated transmission focus as suggested by Stolk and colleagues [20]. Effective settlement level geographical coverage, entomological and human dynamics will be important variables to consider in localised elimination modelling.

The main limitations of this study relate to recall bias and social desirability bias. Social desirability may have led to overreporting of ivermectin participation [59], particularly in settlements like Ottou, Kwadom-Joboy and Kwaededen, which reported over 70% effective coverage. This bias is supported by the contradictory community reports regarding the absence of resident CDDs, which often resulted in missed ivermectin doses in these settlements. This suggests that the reported 53.5% effective participation may be an overestimate of the true coverage. On the other hand, recall bias might have led to underreporting [60], as people recall fewer treatments than they received. In one study, recall accuracy was found to be remarkably high (>80%) at 3, 6- and 12-months post-MDA [61], but this is mainly relevant for preceding CDTI (point participation) rather than CDTI rounds further in the past (effective/cumulative participation). To reduce this bias, answer options were categorized. In another study, Breiger et al (2011) reported equal proportions of underestimation and overestimation at 16.2% [22] in their study, meaning the biases cancelled out. This could be the case in this study. However, in the context of over 27 annual rounds of CDTI in our study area [15] and participants being ≥15 years of age, many people would have taken ivermectin well above 10 times and thus are less likely to be incorrectly classified in the “≥10 times” category. All these arguments suggest that the impact of recall bias might be low. Another source of bias is the possible confusion between the number of years of treatment and the number of times of treatment. Biannual treatment started in the study area in 2018, five years earlier, so the number of times might have been different from the number of years. This situation was partially offset by the 2 missed rounds in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic-related suspension of CDTI [62]. Given the mix of annual and biannual rounds in this study area, interpreting participation in terms of the number of rounds is more appropriate. These challenges should be considered in future evaluations, particularly when establishing cut-off points (number times) corresponding to 10 years of treatment.

In all, despite nearly three decades of mass drug administration (MDA) with ivermectin, the Kwanware-Ottou focus in Ghana remains a stubborn hotspot of onchocerciasis transmission, highlighting a critical gap in the country’s elimination strategy. This localized persistence—characterized by high microfilariae prevalence and intense blackfly biting rates—underscores the limitations of a uniform approach to achieving elimination. Without intensified interventions and cross-district coordination, such foci risk not only sustaining transmission but also reintroducing infection into areas nearing elimination. Identifying these transmission foci is essential—not only to guide where treatment efforts should be intensified, but also to highlight areas vulnerable to resurgence, which should be prioritized for post-stop MDA and post-elimination surveillance.

We recommend a multi-pronged strategy to address these challenges:

  • Developing elimination modelling at the transmission focus level to guide targeted interventions;

  • Introducing prospective surveillance systems to monitor individual-level participation in MDA;

  • Tailoring MDA delivery to reach mobile and hard-to-reach populations through peer-led distribution and occupational synchronization;

  • Reintroducing focal vector control interventions, such as ground larviciding or Slash and Clear.

These measures are essential to safeguard progress toward onchocerciasis elimination in Ghana and elsewhere. As improvements in effective participation may take time to become apparent, we recommend that this exhaustive approach be implemented primarily during the initial investigation of a delineated transmission focus or after at least five rounds/years of CDTI. Including these measures in an exhaustive sampling (census) CES should not cost more than a standard CES conducted at the district level [41], since transmission foci are often much smaller [63,64]. However, formal costing of this approach is needed to better inform national onchocerciasis elimination programmes.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates inadequate effective participation (i.e., ≥ 10 rounds of ivermectin), often masked by high point coverage, as well as settlement-level suboptimal CDTI coverage within the Kwanware-Ottou onchocerciasis transmission focus. High effective participation was significantly associated with reduced infection. Together with high blackfly biting rates, these low participation levels are sustaining ongoing transmission both within the focus and in surrounding areas. Mobile populations, miners, and residents of remote settlements remain underserved during CDTI. Exhaustive CES sampling in transmission hotspots is essential for identifying coverage gaps and guiding targeted interventions. We recommend a multi-pronged strategy—including focus-level elimination modelling, prospective MDA-participation surveillance, tailored delivery approaches for mobile and hard-to-reach groups, and focal vector control—to safeguard progress toward onchocerciasis elimination in Ghana and beyond.

Supporting information

S1 Text. Census Questionnaire.

(DOCX)

pntd.0013171.s001.docx (84KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all the participants who willingly took part in this study. Their cooperation and contributions were invaluable. We also extend our sincere appreciation to the programme staff at the National, Regional, District, and Subdistrict levels for their unwavering support and commitment throughout the study. Additionally, we acknowledge the efforts of the community leaders and local stakeholders who facilitated consultations and mobilization, ensuring the smooth execution of the research.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This work received financial support from the Coalition for Operational Research on Neglected Tropical Diseases (COR-NTD), which is funded at The Task Force for Global Health primarily by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1190754) and by the United States Agency for International Development through its Neglected Tropical Diseases Program. Under the grant conditions of the Foundation, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Generic License has already been assigned to the Author Accepted Manuscript version that might arise from this submission (Grant No 274G to RN). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.WHO. Guidelines for stopping mass drug administration and verifying elimination of human onchocerciasis: criteria and procedures. World Health Organization; 2016. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lakwo T, Oguttu D, Ukety T, Post R, Bakajika D. Onchocerciasis elimination: progress and challenges. Research and Reports in Tropical Medicine. 2020;:81–95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Amaral L-J, Colebunders R. Recognising the neurological burden of onchocerciasis: the need to include onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy in onchocerciasis global health metrics. Infect Dis Poverty. 2025;14(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s40249-025-01297-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.WHO. Elimination of human onchocerciasis: Progress report, 2023–2024. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2024;41:577–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.WHO. Onchocerciasis control in Ghana: achievements and prospects after OCP. 2002.
  • 6.WHO. Elimination of human onchocerciasis: progress report, 2020–Élimination de l’onchocercose humaine: rapport de situation, 2020. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2021;96(46):557–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.WHO. Entomological manual for onchocerciasis elimination programmes. World Health Organization; 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.WHO. The WHO African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control: final evaluation report, October 2015. The WHO African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control: final evaluation report, October 2015 2015.
  • 9.Boatin B. The Onchocerciasis Control Programme in West Africa (OCP). Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2008;102 Suppl 1:13–7. doi: 10.1179/136485908X337427 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.WHO. Report of the consultative meetings on strategic options and alternative treatment strategies for accelerating onchocerciasis elimination in Africa. African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.WHO. The WHO African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control: final evaluation report, October 2015. African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.WHO. Ending the neglect to attain the Sustainable Development Goals: a road map for neglected tropical diseases 2021–2030: World Health Organization; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.WHO. The expanded special project for elimination of neglected tropical diseases (ESPEN) 2017 annual report. The Expanded Special Project for Elimination of Neglected Tropical Diseases (ESPEN) 2017 Annual Report2018.
  • 14.Lamberton PHL, Cheke RA, Winskill P, Tirados I, Walker M, Osei-Atweneboana MY, et al. Onchocerciasis transmission in Ghana: persistence under different control strategies and the role of the simuliid vectors. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(4):e0003688. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003688 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Nditanchou R, Agyemang D, Dixon R, D’Souza S, Selby R, Opare J, et al. Persistent transmission of onchocerciasis in Kwanware-Ottou focus in Wenchi health district, Ghana. BMC Infect Dis. 2024;24(1):1156. doi: 10.1186/s12879-024-10071-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.WHO. Onchocerciasis elimination mapping: a handbook for national elimination programmes. Onchocerciasis elimination mapping: a handbook for national elimination programmes 2024.
  • 17.WHO. Report of the 1st meeting of the WHO Onchocerciasis technical advisory subgroup. Edited by Cantey DP Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.WHO, editor Strategic and technical advisory group for neglected tropical diseases subgroup on disease-specific indicators: integrating national programmes to eliminate lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis: report of a meeting, Geneva, 7–8 February 2015. Strategic and technical advisory group for neglected tropical diseases subgroup on disease-specific indicators: integrating national programmes to eliminate lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis: report of a meeting, Geneva, 7–8 February 2015; 2016.
  • 19.Plaisier AP, van Oortmarssen GJ, Remme J, Habbema JD. The reproductive lifespan of Onchocerca volvulus in West African savanna. Acta Trop. 1991;48(4):271–84. doi: 10.1016/0001-706x(91)90015-c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Stolk WA, Blok DJ, Hamley JID, Cantey PT, de Vlas SJ, Walker M, et al. Scaling-Down Mass Ivermectin Treatment for Onchocerciasis Elimination: Modeling the Impact of the Geographical Unit for Decision Making. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72(Suppl 3):S165–71. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.WHO. Scoping the needs and gaps of endemic countries in the onchocerciasis elimination programme: Findings report, June 2023. Scoping the needs and gaps of endemic countries in the onchocerciasis elimination programme: findings report, June 2023 2023.
  • 22.Brieger WR, Okeibunor JC, Abiose AO, Wanji S, Elhassan E, Ndyomugyenyi R, et al. Compliance with eight years of annual ivermectin treatment of onchocerciasis in Cameroon and Nigeria. Parasit Vectors. 2011;4:152. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-4-152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.WHO. Conceptual and Operational Framework for Onchocerciasis Elimination with Ivermectin Treatment. 2010.
  • 24.Bakajika D, Senyonjo L, Enyong P, Oye J, Biholong B, Elhassan E, et al. On-going transmission of human onchocerciasis in the Massangam health district in the West Region of Cameroon: Better understanding transmission dynamics to inform changes in programmatic interventions. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(11):e0006904. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006904 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ng M, Fullman N, Dieleman JL, Flaxman AD, Murray CJL, Lim SS. Effective coverage: a metric for monitoring Universal Health Coverage. PLoS Med. 2014;11(9):e1001730. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001730 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.WHO. Informal consultation on elimination of onchocerciasis transmission with current tools:“ shrinking the map”. African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.WHO. Community directed treatment with ivermectin for health professionals: field work and training manual. 2003.
  • 28.WHO. Monitoring Drug Coverage for Preventive Chemotherapy; 2010.
  • 29.Atekem K, Dixon R, Wilhelm A, Biholong B, Oye J, Djeunga HN, et al. Evaluating the impact of alternative intervention strategies in accelerating onchocerciasis elimination in an area of persistent transmission in the West Region of Cameroon. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2022;16(12):e0010591. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010591 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Biritwum NK, de Souza DK, Asiedu O, Marfo B, Amazigo UV, Gyapong JO. Onchocerciasis control in Ghana (1974–2016). Parasites Vectors. 2021;14(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Otabil KB, Ankrah B, Bart-Plange EJ, Donkoh ES, Avarikame FA, Ofori-Appiah FO, et al. Prevalence of epilepsy in the onchocerciasis endemic middle belt of Ghana after 27 years of mass drug administration with ivermectin. Infectious Diseases of Poverty. 2023;12(1):75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Otabil KB, Basáñez M-G, Ankrah B, Opoku SA, Kyei DO, Hagan R, et al. Persistence of onchocerciasis and associated dermatologic and ophthalmic pathologies after 27 years of ivermectin mass drug administration in the middle belt of Ghana. Trop Med Int Health. 2023;28(11):844–54. doi: 10.1111/tmi.13937 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Stapley JN, Hamley JID, Basáñez M-G, Walker M. Modelling transmission thresholds and hypoendemic stability for onchocerciasis elimination. PLoS Comput Biol. 2025;21(4):e1013026. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Tang L, Werner TT. Global mining footprint mapped from high-resolution satellite imagery. Commun Earth Environ. 2023;4(1). doi: 10.1038/s43247-023-00805-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Maddren R, Phillips A, Rayment Gomez S, Forbes K, Collyer BS, Kura K, et al. Individual longitudinal compliance to neglected tropical disease mass drug administration programmes, a systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2023;17(7):e0010853. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010853 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mutono N, Basáñez M-G, James A, Stolk WA, Makori A, Kimani TN, et al. Elimination of transmission of onchocerciasis (river blindness) with long-term ivermectin mass drug administration with or without vector control in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2024;12(5):e771–82. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(24)00043-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.O’brien RM. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual Quant. 2007;41(5):673–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Jenkins DG, Quintana-Ascencio PF. A solution to minimum sample size for regressions. PLoS One. 2020;15(2):e0229345. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1763–8. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Yates F. Sampling methods for censuses and surveys. 1949.
  • 42.Katabarwa MN, Zarroug IMA, Negussu N, Aziz NM, Tadesse Z, Elmubark WA, et al. The Galabat-Metema cross-border onchocerciasis focus: The first coordinated interruption of onchocerciasis transmission in Africa. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(2):e0007830. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007830 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Dyson L, Stolk WA, Farrell SH, Hollingsworth TD. Measuring and modelling the effects of systematic non-adherence to mass drug administration. Epidemics. 2017;18:56–66. doi: 10.1016/j.epidem.2017.02.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hardwick RJ, Truscott JE, Oswald WE, Werkman M, Halliday KE, Pullan RL, et al. Individual adherence to mass drug administration in neglected tropical disease control: A probability model conditional on past behaviour. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(1):e0009112. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Wanji S, Kengne-Ouafo JA, Esum ME, Chounna PWN, Adzemye BF, Eyong JEE, et al. Relationship between oral declaration on adherence to ivermectin treatment and parasitological indicators of onchocerciasis in an area of persistent transmission despite a decade of mass drug administration in Cameroon. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:667. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-1283-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Krentel A, Damayanti R, Titaley CR, Suharno N, Bradley M, Lynam T. Improving Coverage and Compliance in Mass Drug Administration for the Elimination of LF in Two “Endgame” Districts in Indonesia Using Micronarrative Surveys. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(11):e0005027. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Silumbwe AA. Community participation in mass drug administration for lymphatic filariasis in Luangwa district, Lusaka province. The University of Zambia; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Efon-Ekangouo A, Nana-Djeunga HC, Nzune-Toche N, Dongmo-Yemele R, Bopda J, Ongbassomben V, et al. Impact of short-term discontinuation of ivermectin-based chemoprevention on onchocerciasis transmission in endemic settings with long history of mass drug administration. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2023;17(4):e0011250. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011250 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Molyneux DH, Aboe A, Isiyaku S, Bush S. COVID-19 and neglected tropical diseases in Africa: impacts, interactions, consequences. Oxford University Press; 2020. p. 367–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Hamley JID, Blok DJ, Walker M, Milton P, Hopkins AD, Hamill LC, et al. What does the COVID-19 pandemic mean for the next decade of onchocerciasis control and elimination? Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2021;115(3):269–80. doi: 10.1093/trstmh/traa193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hamley JID, Milton P, Walker M, Basáñez M-G. Modelling exposure heterogeneity and density dependence in onchocerciasis using a novel individual-based transmission model, EPIONCHO-IBM: Implications for elimination and data needs. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(12):e0007557. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.WHO. Influenza (seasonal) Geneva: World Health Organization; 2025. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/influenza-(seasonal) [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Crowne DP, Marlowe D. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J Consult Psychol. 1960;24:349–54. doi: 10.1037/h0047358 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Yiridomoh GY. “Illegal” Gold Mining Operations in Ghana: Implication for Climate-Smart Agriculture in Northwestern Ghana. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2021;5. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.745317 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Vinkeles Melchers NVS, Agoro S, Togbey K, Padjoudoum K, Telou IG, Karabou P, et al. Impact of ivermectin and vector control on onchocerciasis transmission in Togo: Assessing the empirical evidence on trends in infection and entomological indicators. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2024;18(7):e0012312. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012312 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Siewe Fodjo JN, Vieri MK, Ngarka L, Njamnshi WY, Nfor LN, Mengnjo MK, et al. “Slash and clear” vector control for onchocerciasis elimination and epilepsy prevention: a protocol of a cluster randomised trial in Cameroonian villages. BMJ Open. 2021;11(9):e050341. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050341 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Wanji S, Kengne-Ouafo JA, Esum ME, Chounna PWN, Tendongfor N, Adzemye BF, et al. Situation analysis of parasitological and entomological indices of onchocerciasis transmission in three drainage basins of the rain forest of South West Cameroon after a decade of ivermectin treatment. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:202. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-0817-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Bockarie MJ, de Souza DK, Ansumana R, Ladzekpo D, Ramaiah KD, Karutu C, et al. The changing funding landscape for infectious disease research and control: implications for resource-limited countries. Int J Infect Dis. 2025;154:107868. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2025.107868 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Teh WL, Abdin E, P V A, Siva Kumar FD, Roystonn K, Wang P, et al. Measuring social desirability bias in a multi-ethnic cohort sample: its relationship with self-reported physical activity, dietary habits, and factor structure. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):415. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-15309-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Raphael K. Recall bias: a proposal for assessment and control. Int J Epidemiol. 1987;16(2):167–70. doi: 10.1093/ije/16.2.167 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Budge PJ, Sognikin E, Akosa A, Mathieu EM, Deming M. Accuracy of Coverage Survey Recall following an Integrated Mass Drug Administration for Lymphatic Filariasis, Schistosomiasis, and Soil-Transmitted Helminthiasis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(1):e0004358. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Hamley JID, Blok DJ, Walker M, Milton P, Hopkins AD, Hamill LC, et al. What does the COVID-19 pandemic mean for the next decade of onchocerciasis control and elimination? Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2021;115(3):269–80. doi: 10.1093/trstmh/traa193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Nditanchou R, Agyemang D, Dixon R, D’Souza S, Selby R, Opare J, et al. Persistent transmission of onchocerciasis in Kwanware-Ottou focus in Wenchi health district, Ghana. BMC Infect Dis. 2024;24(1):1156. doi: 10.1186/s12879-024-10071-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Bakajika D, Senyonjo L, Enyong P, Oye J, Biholong B, Elhassan E, et al. On-going transmission of human onchocerciasis in the Massangam health district in the West Region of Cameroon: Better understanding transmission dynamics to inform changes in programmatic interventions. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(11):e0006904. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006904 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013171.r001

Decision Letter 0

Eduardo José Lopes-Torres

15 Jul 2025

Evaluating participation in Ivermectin Mass Drug Administration in the Kwanware-Ottou Persistent Onchocerciasis Transmission Focus in Wenchi, Ghana

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Dear Dr. NDITANCHOU,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Sep 13 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 plosntds@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pntd/ 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 editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* 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, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eduardo José Lopes-Torres, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Jong-Yil Chai

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

Journal Requirements:

1) Please ensure that the CRediT author contributions listed for every co-author are completed accurately and in full.

At this stage, the following Authors/Authors require contributions: Rogers NDITANCHOU, Akinola Stephen Oluwole, Judith Sare, David Agyemang, Alexandre Chailloux, Sandra Adelaide King, Mike Yaw Osei-Atweneboana, Richard Selby, Joseph Opare, Anita Jeyam, Stephen Pye, Louise Hamill, Joseph Nelson Siewe Fodjo, Elena Schmidt, Veronique Verhoeven, and Robert Colebunders. Please ensure that the full contributions of each author are acknowledged in the "Add/Edit/Remove Authors" section of our submission form.

The list of CRediT author contributions may be found here: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/authorship#loc-author-contributions

2) We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex. If you are providing a .tex file, please upload it under the item type u2018LaTeX Source Fileu2019 and leave your .pdf version as the item type u2018Manuscriptu2019.

3) Please provide an Author Summary. This should appear in your manuscript between the Abstract (if applicable) and the Introduction, and should be 150-200 words long. The aim should be to make your findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. Sample summaries can be found on our website under Submission Guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-parts-of-a-submission

4) We do not publish any copyright or trademark symbols that usually accompany proprietary names, eg ©,  ®, or TM  (e.g. next to drug or reagent names). Therefore please remove all instances of trademark/copyright symbols throughout the text, including:

- © on page: 11

- ® on page: 11.

5) Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/figures

6) We have noticed that you referred to (Appendix 1) in your manuscript on pages 8 and 9. However, there is no corresponding file uploaded to the submission. Please upload it as a separate file with the item type 'Supporting Information'. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list.

7)  Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOSu2019s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOSu2019s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. Once you have responded and addressed all other outstanding technical requirements, you may resubmit your manuscript within Editorial Manager.

Potential Copyright Issues:

i) Figures 1. Please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC BY 4.0 license.

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC BY 4.0 license.

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps:

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov)

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite u201cPlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0u201d in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl)

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/).

ii) Figure 2: Thank you for stating "river network from HydroSheds; https://www.hydrosheds.org/products/hydrosheds." We noted that the license is not compatible with our CC BY 4.0 License. Please amend the relevant section of the figure to be from a source that is compatible with our CC BY 4.0 License.

8) We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files;" however, there are not any supporting information files uploaded to the submission.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

1) The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

2) The values used to build graphs;

3) The points extracted from images for analysis..

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

9) Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

1) State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant. For example: "This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (####### to AM; ###### to CJ) and the National Science Foundation (###### to AM)."

2) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

3) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

Please ensure that the funders and grant numbers match between the Financial Disclosure field and the Funding Information tab in your submission form. Note that the funders must be provided in the same order in both places as well.

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: The objectives and hypothesis are clear for this study. The data used is partially historical: microfilarial prevalence levels from 1989 and mf and OV16 levels from 2021, and partially self reported by participants surveyed for effective participation. The authors acknowledge that this could potentially result in over reporting in some instances (social desireability), and underreporting in others due to recall bias, which means they could cancel each other out. The statistical methods are appropriate for the data, thogh some sites are poorly sampled, so it might be beneficial to redo the regression model with only well sampled sites to compare odds ratios. I have no ethical or regulatory concerns

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Lines 115-124: Is there baseline information on onchocerciasis endemicity or the pre-control prevalence (%) in Wenchi HD? While I noticed that some data are later presented in Table 2, it may be helpful to briefly mention the baseline status here for context. Additionally, could the authors clarify how the COVID-19 pandemic affected programme implementation? Was uninterrupted biannual CDTI maintained since 2018, or were there any disruptions? If there was a temporary halt, I recommend discussing its potential implications for onchocerciasis control and elimination progress in both this focus and in Ghana overall in the Discussion section (e.g., see paper "What does the COVID-19 pandemic mean for the next decade of onchocerciasis control and elimination?").

Line 123: I appreciate that confidence intervals (CIs) are provided for microfilarial prevalence. I encourage the authors to also report CIs for other key measures in this paragraph, including blackfly infectivity rates if possible. If CIs are not feasible, please consider indicating the sample sizes (e.g., how many individuals or flies were surveyed), as this would help readers assess representativeness.

Line 124: Please replace “5.9‰” with “5.9%” and remove the unnecessary period at the end of the sentence. I also recommend defining abbreviations such as “km” and “CI” upon their first use.

Lines 125-127: Given that the transmission focus spans three HDs, were there any periods when different control interventions were implemented in these HDs, or did all three consistently receive annual/biannual CDTI simultaneously? (and vector control?)

Figure 1: I suggest including, perhaps in the figure subtitle, the years during which serological and parasitological surveys were conducted, as well as the years of fly collection and larval inspection. In the Methods section, it may be informative to cite the range of monthly biting rates or MTP from reference 20, as these data help contextualise the transmission potential. The reported MBRs from reference 20 (5,000–6,000 in Ottu and Kwanware) seem high relative to the moderate baseline endemicity in Table 2. Were the MBRs always this high, or have they fluctuated? Some clarification on the relationship between these metrics would be helpful.

Indeed, given the persistent transmission and high MBRs, in contrast to the moderate baseline microfilarial prevalence of this focus (e.g., hypo- to mesoendemic), would it be more relevant to explore which community groups may be exposed to the high MBRs (subgroup of the population may be considered hyperendemic at baseline).

Lines 140-142: How was the term “transmission focus” defined? Did the authors follow a specific criterion (e.g., WHO’s 10 km guideline) for this designation?

Lines 145-147: The use of GPS satellite imagery to identify settlements and its integration with field and government data is somewhat innovative, commendable methodology.

Lines 177-178: While I understand the rationale for capping reported MDA participation at 10 rounds, especially since biannual treatment began only in 2018, I suggest clarifying that this may not perfectly reflect years of treatment. The current discussion appropriately notes that 10 rounds may not always correspond to 10 years.

Lines 179-182: The classification of “non-effective” participation as fewer than 10 rounds may be affected by recall and desirability biases. I recommend considering exploratory analyses using shorter thresholds, ideally based on prior literature and your own data collection to further strengthen this aspect.

Line 206: Should “Ov16” read “anti-Ov16”? Were participants tested for antibodies to the Ov16 antigen (anti-Ov16), or for the antigen itself (Ov16)? Please clarify and use consistent terminology throughout the manuscript.

Line 207: When referring to “communities,” is this synonymous with the 19 “settlements” described in the Results? Please ensure consistent terminology to aid reader understanding.

Length of stay in the community: For participants with up to 10 years of residence, were responses capped or excluded if they had not lived in the area for the full duration of MDA implementation? Alternatively, was an exploratory analysis conducted to assess whether these individuals influenced the results? Clarification here would improve the robustness of the findings.

**********

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: Yes.

The figures are sufficient for the analysis, and clear.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Line 226: Was age assessed for normality before reporting the mean and standard deviation (SD)? Given the inclusion criteria starts at age 15, the age distribution may be skewed, so median and interquartile range (IQR) might be more appropriate. Please define “SD” as “standard deviation” upon first use.

Line 228: Table 1 does not require brackets. Additionally, please check for typographical errors such as “participati on” and “co verage,” which appear in my version of the manuscript.

Table 1: Table 1 addresses two important concepts: effective participation (at least 10 rounds of ivermectin) and point participation (participation in the last round). Many programmes emphasise point participation, but effective participation is often more critical for infection clearance. While recall bias limits this measure’s precision, the distinction is valuable; point participation is relatively high (80.3%) among the eligible population, but effective participation is notably lower (53.4%).

Table 2: It is notable that this hypo- to mesoendemic focus at baseline continues to exhibit substantial onchocerciasis transmission (as shown by microfilariae and anti-Ov16 prevalence, 0–30% and 1–19%, respectively); but again, perhaps less suprising given the very high MBRs. Are there particular communities within the area, or subgroups (e.g., those closer to blackfly breeding sites with >400 larvae found, per Figure 1), that have disproportionally higher transmission or disease burden? If so, could this inform a more targeted approach to MDA or surveillance? If data in Table 2 were sourced from Reference 20, please include a citation in the table.

Additionally, what does the hyphen “–” signify in Table 2? Does it indicate missing data? For the Branam community at baseline, the cell is blank, could this be clarified? Further, the methodology for assessing microfilariae and anti-Ov16 prevalence is not described in detail. Was microfilarial prevalence assessed in adults? How were skin snips performed (e.g., two samples per person, inverted or classic microscopy)? Which assay was used for anti-Ov16? If these results are to remain in the Results, I suggest adding this methodological detail in the Methods section.

Lastly, why is the Ottu community not mentioned in Table 2, given the focus on the Kwanware-Ottu persistent transmission focus? Reference 20 appears to have data for both microfilarial prevalence and anti-Ov16 seroprevalence for Ottu.

Line 241: Is there a specific reason for enumerating this paragraph as “1.” without subsequent numbered items? If not, the enumeration can be removed for clarity.

Table 3: Were variables assessed for multicollinearity, particularly between ethnic groups and sub-districts, since certain sub-districts may predominantly comprise particular ethnic groups or occupations (e.g., miners in Boase)? The Discussion (lines 323–325) notes that sub-districts may overlap substantially with occupational groups.

Lines 247–256: Please provide complete comparisons in the text. For instance, “miners and students or other occupations have significantly lower odds of being in the higher categories” should specify “compared to farmers.” Please clarify the reference categories in sentences about ethnic groups and sub-districts as well.

Line 262: Instead of a standalone sentence, please include “(see Table 4)” in brackets.

Lines 260–264: The phrase “associations in the same direction” would benefit from clarification. This likely means that the direction of associations for effective and point participation is consistent. Additionally, how does this compare to the previous model, given that the explanatory variables are the same?

Lines 261–262: Is there a reason for the observed differences between effective and point participation models, particularly regarding the “travel category”? Additional explanation would be valuable.

**********

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: This manuscript is of public health interest, though additional details on how to further understand this data could be presented. Descriptive methods could be used to explain how the anomalous Ottou site, with very high rates of effective and point participation differs from the other sites.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Lines 273–274: The statement, “The exhaustive sampling provided accurate and precise estimates, with negligible sampling error (24),” implies formal testing for accuracy and precision. If such testing was performed, please add the relevant details to the Methods and Results. If not, I suggest revising to a more tentative statement, such as, “The exhaustive sampling aimed to provide accurate and precise estimates…”

Line 279: Rather than “some,” please specify the exact number of settlements (e.g., “ten”).

Lines 283–285: The phrase “would have been missed during usual CES” suggests certainty. If this is hypothetical, please rephrase to “could have been missed…” or provide supporting evidence.

Lines 303–304: Clarify how “indicates a more stable model when changing from the treatment category 5–9 times to ≥10 times” relates to the earlier statement in lines 255–256 (“The model is most stable for change from 2 (5–10 times) to 3 (>10 times) categories”). The intervals are defined differently; please ensure consistency or explain the distinction.

Lines 307–308: Could you clarify why “<10 times” and “≥10 times” is a viable cut-off for effective participation? While this threshold aligns with programmatic guidance, the model explains only 14.5% of the variability, which may represent a normal range for community settings but still relatively low, especially when compared to the point model’s 34.2%.

Lines 328–329:

Do you have specific recommendations for improving coverage among highly mobile communities (e.g., miners, farmers)? Would strategies such as delivering ivermectin during mining activities, or incorporating satellite data for planning, help improve treatment coverage?

Lines 332–342: I commend the thorough limitations section, particularly the discussion of recall and social desirability biases. However, in lines 340–342, caution is needed: while some individuals may have received more than 10 treatments over three decades, interruptions could allow adult worms to resume microfilariae production and sustain transmission. The impact of missing one or two rounds, whether consecutively or intermittently over 10 years, may differ and could be explored further.

Vector Dynamics and Control Strategies: Given the high biting rates observed (up to 6,000 MBR, per Reference 20), I encourage the authors to discuss their implications. In Togo, such rates were associated with holoendemicity (up to 90% microfilariae prevalence at baseline), yet elimination was nearly achieved through a combination of biannual ivermectin and vector control (see “Reaching Elimination of Onchocerciasis Transmission with Long-term Vector Control…” and “Impact of ivermectin and vector control on onchocerciasis transmission in Togo…”). Reference 20 notes that Ghana also implemented vector control during OCP, including in rivers near Kwanware and Ottou, but vector control is not mentioned in the manuscript. Would the authors recommend re-implementing focal vector control (e.g., ground larviciding or Slash and Clear), alongside improved CDTI, for persistent foci? Might further surveys soon after multiple years of biannual CDTI provide greater insight into trends?

Policy Recommendations: A brief policy recommendation paragraph before the conclusion would be helpful. Besides using elimination modelling, do the authors suggest introducing prospective surveillance for effective participation to reduce recall bias, or other surveillance improvements? As well as some of the recommendations I suggsted earlier.

Mobility and Reinfection Risk: In lines 215–216, it is noted that “many unoccupied temporal shelters” are used by farmers, miners and cattle rearers. Do these groups reside within or outside the transmission focus? If outside, could they act as a source of reinfection to areas in Ghana where elimination is nearly achieved?

Contextualisation: How does the Kwanware-Ottou focus fit within the broader context of onchocerciasis control and elimination efforts in Ghana?

**********

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: It appears that Dagaaba is misspelled as Dagaarba throughout the manuscript. Please ensure that this spelling is appropriate and not a lesser used or historical name for this group.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Background Section

Line 68: Consider whether the abbreviation “Ov” is necessary. In lines 76–77, you use the standard abbreviation “O. volvulus,” which is more common in the literature.

Lines 69–70: It would strengthen your argument to add a reference for the onchocerciasis burden. Additionally, consider mentioning that the burden of onchocerciasis has recently been associated with neurological complications, such as onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy.

Lines 75–76: Please clarify whether “therapeutic coverage” refers to the overall population or to the eligible population (likely the latter, given the scope of the manuscript).

Lines 74–77: The explanation that ivermectin must be administered for several years to match the reproductive lifespan of the adult worm is helpful. For clarity, please add that ivermectin is microfilaricidal, it kills the larvae (microfilariae) of O. volvulus, not the adult worms, therefore the long treatment. Also, the 85% coverage threshold for eligible population is typically cited for the onchocerciasis elimination programme in the Americas, while 80% is the standard for Africa (see Guidelines for stopping mass drug administration and verifying elimination of human onchocerciasis: criteria and procedures). Is there a reason for using 85% as the benchmark for Ghana in this article? If so, please clarify. That said; I agree that higher coverage is always preferable, especially in such a high-transmission focus.

Lines 81–82: When stating, “To assess this, it is recommended that coverage evaluation surveys (CES) be conducted every 1–3 years at the evaluation unit level,” please specify who recommends this and include a reference.

Lines 84–85: These lines, while clearer, appear to partially repeat information from lines 80–81. Consider consolidating for clarity and conciseness.

Lines 87–88: Although APOC will be familiar to expert readers, it would be helpful in earlier paragraphs, when introducing onchocerciasis control, EOT, Ghana, etc., to mention that onchocerciasis control in Africa began with OCP and later APOC.

Line 89: Regarding the statement, “little consideration has been given to this kind of evaluation thereafter (13),” please clarify what “thereafter” refers to. Does it mean after a programme in the APOC area reaches 8 years of MDA, or after a specific year when such surveys were mainly conducted?

Lines 91–93: Since geographic and therapeutic coverage are key components of the manuscript, I recommend briefly defining how each is determined in the introduction.

**********

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: The manuscript “Evaluating participation in Ivermectin Mass Drug Administration in the Kwanware-Ottou Persistent Onchocerciasis Transmission Focus in Wenchi, Ghana” discusses current shortfalls in ivermectin MDA efforts in treating Onchocerciasis, a neglected but very treatable filarial parasite in the Wenchi health district. Both historical data (microfilarial prevalence levels from 1989 and mf and OV16 levels from 2021) are compared against survey data on usage of more than 10 administrations of ivermectin (effective), compared against ivermectin administration in the most recent round of CDTI.

Overall the manuscript is well written and the statistical methods are appropriate for the types of data used in the study. The results should be of interest to those in public health and those in the filarial community

I have only minor comments:

- Curiously, some regions exceed the recommended levels of effective participation in MDA (Ottou, Kwadom Joboy). In the case of Ottou it is excluded from the analysis as an outlier. It nevertheless stands as an anomaly. Based on the regression model it would still be interesting to see how Ottou fits the model.

- It appears that Dagaaba is misspelled as Dagaarba throughout the manuscript. Please ensure that this spelling is appropriate and not a lesser used or historical name for this group.

Reviewer #2: The authors evaluated participation in ivermectin mass drug administration (MDA) for onchocerciasis in the Wenchi district of Ghana. The study highlights that low participation rates and limited geographical (settlement-level) coverage contribute to persistent transmission of the disease.

1. The manuscript focuses solely on participation, but does not provide any information on compliance, which is essential to fully assess the effectiveness of CDTI efforts.

2. Annex 1 is referenced but not included in the submission.

3. The manuscript lacks a broader discussion comparing findings with those from other countries, and especially from other districts or regions within Ghana. Several studies have been published on participation and compliance with CDTI, and integrating these comparisons would help identify key lessons to improve program success and support onchocerciasis elimination.

4. Figure 1: An overview map of Ghana should be included before the study area map to help readers understand the location of the Wenchi district within the national context.

5. Table 1: The asterisk (*) next to "Ottou" needs to be explained in a footnote or legend for clarity.

6. In the Results section, it would be helpful to briefly summarize the key findings from the tables in one to two sentences. This would allow readers to quickly grasp the main take-home messages.

Reviewer #3: This is an interesting and timely paper, particularly relevant as sub-Saharan Africa advances toward the ambitious goal of onchocerciasis transmission elimination and eventual eradication. I appreciate that the authors provided a version of the manuscript with numbered lines, which facilitated referencing specific points throughout this review.

One of the main strengths of the paper lies in its thoughtful discussion of the limitations inherent in reporting geographic and therapeutic coverage at the district or larger administrative levels, an issue that often results in missing small settlements that may act as persistent pockets of transmission. The authors also draw attention to the significant impact of intermittent ivermectin intake: missing several years of treatment may prevent infection clearance, a crucial and sometimes underappreciated challenge in longstanding onchocerciasis control efforts across sub-Saharan Africa. These points are known but relevant, especially in the context of a high-endemicity area in Ghana where nearly three decades of ivermectin distribution have not interrupted transmission.

Overall, the manuscript is comprehensive and demonstrates critical thinking, offering a wealth of information on the transmission focus under study. The inclusion of detailed epidemiological and programmatic data, along with reflections on the challenges and implications for control, is commendable and adds value to the field. Such thoroughness is not always present in programmatic literature and will be appreciated by both researchers and policy-makers, especially after answering some of review queries for complementary information.

The study’s key strengths include its exhaustive approach to data collection, the integration of both epidemiological and entomological findings, and the critical reflection on programmatic and methodological limitations. The discussion is balanced and the policy recommendations are well founded, although they could be further expanded, especially regarding strategies to address persistent transmission in hard-to-reach communities and within Ghana.

Some minor points, such as the need for more consistent terminology, clarification of methods, and a more cautious interpretation of some outcomes, are addressed in detail in the specific comments. While part of the data has been publsihed before, there are no concerns about research ethics or dual publication. Overall, I believe the manuscript makes a significant contribution to the understanding of onchocerciasis control and surveillance in highly endemic, resource-constrained settings of West Africa.

I recommend publication after revision, with attention to the specific methodological clarifications and policy recommendations outlined in my comments.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Luís-Jorge Amaral

[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.]

Figure resubmission:

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. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions.

Reproducibility:

?>

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013171.r003

Decision Letter 1

Eduardo José Lopes-Torres

2 Dec 2025

Evaluating participation in Ivermectin Mass Drug Administration in the Kwanware-Ottou Persistent Onchocerciasis Transmission Focus, Wenchi, Ghana

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Dear Dr. NDITANCHOU,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 01 2026 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 plosntds@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pntd/ 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 editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers '. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* 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, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eduardo José Lopes-Torres, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Jong-Yil Chai

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

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.

1) Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

1) State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant. For example: "This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (####### to AM; ###### to CJ) and the National Science Foundation (###### to AM)."

2) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

3) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders..

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please simply state: u201cThe authors received no specific funding for this work.u201d

2)  Please ensure that the funders and grant numbers match between the Financial Disclosure field and the Funding Information tab in your submission form. Note that the funders must be provided in the same order in both places as well.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Methods:

1) Line 154: “Microfilariae” does not need a hyphen in the manuscript text.

2) Table 1 and related text: It would be helpful to clarify when vector control started in this health district. Was it in nineteen seventy four, as in Ghana overall If so, the prevalence reported for nineteen eighty would not correspond to a true baseline, which suggests hyperendemicity and high transmission potential before control. This clarification is mentioned later around paragraph 170, but it would be very useful to state it earlier in the table legend or in the first methods paragraph with the epidemiological indicators.

3) First methods paragraph and Table 1: Just an observation, the increasing trend in prevalence in Kwanware and Ottou, although based on recent small sample sizes, suggests high transmission potential, compounded by sub-optimal effective CDTI as you discuss in the manuscript. It could be interesting to conduct a brief human landing catch survey in this location.

Figure 1 is very clear and visually informative.

4) Line 184: It is not certain that all readers will immediately recognise the meaning of “%0” notation. I would consider briefly defining it the first time it appears.

**********

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Results:

Figure 2 is also clearly presented and easy to interpret.

1) Table 2: For Ottou, please consider reporting the exact p-value if possible. At present it is written as “less than zero point two four three” or similar. The "<" may just be a typo.

2) Lines 305 and 306: You state that the young population had a coverage of less than fifty five percent. If available, please provide the precise percentage.

3) Line 327: Consider whether “microfilaria prevalence” should be “microfilarial prevalence” for consistency of terminology.

4) Lines 307 and 322 Ottou as an outlier: I am not entirely convinced that Ottou should be excluded from the analyses as an outlier. While the sample size is indeed small and neighbouring settlements have lower prevalence, this needs careful consideration. Either

a) the population in Ottou truly has high point and longitudinal participation in ivermectin due to their location or knowledge of its importance, and prevalence is driven by high biting rates combined with lower coverage in nearby settlements, or

b) the method used may be less reliable when sample sizes are very small for example with only nineteen individuals, due to biases such as recal bias.

It is likely that both mechanisms contribute, although the first may be particularly important. There may also be additional, less obvious reasons. Importantly, onchocerciasis transmission is highly heterogeneous, in contrast to infections such as influenza where exposure is more homogeneous. Some settlements often experience much higher blackfly biting rates. For this reason I would still consider including Ottou in the analyses, perhaps with an appropriate note of caution.

5) Table 3 participation: Please check the proportions for cumulative participation. Several entries appear to exceed one hundred percent when summed by row. For instance 21 participants out of 52 is not 65.3%, and 121 out of 353 is not 27.1%.

6) Table 3 microfilarial prevalence and anti-Ov16: For the values given in brackets for microfilarial prevalence and anti-Ov16, please specify explicitly in the Table what these represent for example 95% confidence intervals.

7) Table 4: “Cattle rearing/” can be simplified by removing the slash?

8) Given the abundance of rivers in the study area, fishing is mentioned briefly around line 209. If fishing is a relevant occupation in this population, please clarify whether it was considered as a variable and if not (or no one reported the profession?), whether this potential heterogeneity in exposure is adequately captured under related high-risk occupations such as farming.

**********

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Discussion:

1) Lines 375 to 377: I would be cautious about emphasising the coverage estimates from the 19 settlements too strongly, since some settlements are very small and the estimates may be sensitive to a few households being missed or not targeted. This is more of a nuance than a requested change, as the current text is very acceptable, and indeed the authors express they view well of going into detailed data of onchocerciasis exposure and control.

2) Please define the acronym CDD the first time it appears on the main text.

3) Suboptimal coverage: One question that remains is whether suboptimal coverage in some settlements is mainly due to a lack of willingness to take ivermectin at that round, to people being absent or working when distributors visited, or to CDDs moving through too quickly and missing households. A short reflection on these potential mechanisms would add useful context. I might have missed it in the discussion?

4) Lines 412 and 413: A reference could be needed to support the statement in these lines.

5) Closing remark: Overall, the manuscript is a clear and valuable account of Ghana and West Africa efforts to eliminate onchocerciasis while addressing persistent transmission. The analysis of effective participation is particularly informative and underlines the importance of heterogeneity in ivermectin uptake, in parallel with heterogeneous exposure to blackfly bites. The attention to mobile populations is also timely and relevant, since these groups may increasingly act as reservoirs and threaten elimination goals.

**********

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Abstract:

1) Line 35: Please consider also reporting confidence intervals for the main quantitative results, especially for effective participation coverage.

Author summary

2) Line 47: The expression “onchocerciasis public health challenge” resembles “public health problem”, which accurately describes the situation in West Africa before OCP. Since onchocerciasis-related morbidity, such as blindness, is now mostly suppressed in Ghana at the moment, it might be more precise to say that “transmission persists in parts of Ghana” or similar wording.

3) Line 48: There is a missing full stop at the end of the sentence. Otherwise, the author summary reads clearly and is easy to follow.

Background:

4) Line 83: A reference appears to be missing for the statement in this line.

5) Lines 85 and 86: While it is correct that OCP initially relied on vector control, ivermectin delivery became very important from the early nineteen nineties, in some areas even replacing vector control, still during OCP. Therefore, as you explain later in the manuscript, OCP also relied on ivermectin in its later phases. The sentence would benefit from reflecting this evolution more explicitly.

6) Lines 91 and 92: This sentence could be strengthened by citing the relevant APOC report that documents elimination as a public health problem being achieved.

7) Lines 106 and 107: A reference is needed for the reproductive lifespan of the parasite. Otherwise, this paragraph now reads well and is informative.

**********

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all raised questions and revised the manuscript accordingly. I therefore support publication.

Reviewer #3: The revised manuscript reads as a very informative contribution and a strong testament to the long term efforts in Ghana and West Africa to eliminate onchocerciasis despite persistent transmission in some areas. The methodology used to quantify effective participation is particularly insightful and highlights important heterogeneity in ivermectin uptake, which is meaningful given that exposure to onchocerciasis is also heterogeneous. The discussion of mobile populations is especially relevant, as these groups may increasingly act as reservoirs and jeopardise elimination efforts as transmission becomes more focal.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Luís-Jorge Amaral

Figure resubmission:

While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.

Reproducibility:--> -->-->To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols-->?>

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013171.r005

Decision Letter 2

Eduardo José Lopes-Torres

18 Jan 2026

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Dear Dr. NDITANCHOU,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 17 2026 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 plosntds@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pntd/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers '. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* 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, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eduardo José Lopes-Torres, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Jong-Yil Chai

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

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.

1)  Please ensure that the funders and grant numbers match between the Financial Disclosure field and the Funding Information tab in your submission form. Note that the funders must be provided in the same order in both places as well.

Reviewers' comments:

Figure resubmission:

While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013171.r007

Decision Letter 3

Eduardo José Lopes-Torres

28 Jan 2026

Dear NDITANCHOU,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Evaluating participation in Ivermectin Mass Drug Administration in the Kwanware-Ottou Persistent Onchocerciasis Transmission Focus, Wenchi, Ghana' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Eduardo José Lopes-Torres, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Jong-Yil Chai

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

***********************************************************

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 14.0px Arial; color: #323333; -webkit-text-stroke: #323333}span.s1 {font-kerning: none

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013171.r008

Acceptance letter

Eduardo José Lopes-Torres

Dear NDITANCHOU,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Point Participation Does Not Reflect Long‑Term Treatment Adherence: An Evaluation of Ivermectin MDA in the Kwanware‑Ottou Persistent Onchocerciasis Transmission Focus, Wen-chi, Ghana," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

For Research Articles, 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.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Text. Census Questionnaire.

    (DOCX)

    pntd.0013171.s001.docx (84KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

    pntd.0013171.s003.docx (44.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response_letter_v2.docx

    pntd.0013171.s004.docx (26.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response_letter_v2_auresp_3.docx

    pntd.0013171.s005.docx (26.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES