Table 1.

Proportion of anopheline mosquitoes caught indoors, proportion when most people are indoors, and proportion of human exposure occuring indoors for non-ITN and IRS users in Luangwa valley, south-east Zambia^a

Mosquito species	Proportion caught indoors (Pi)b		Proportion caught when most people are indoors (Pfl)c		Proportion of human exposure occurring indoors (πi)d
	Estimate [95% CI]	p	Estimate [95% CI]	p	Estimate [95% CI]	P
An. funestus	0.586 (0.303, 0.821)	0.565	0.981 (0.881, 0.997)	<0.001	0.983 (0.845, 0.998)	<0.001
An. quadriannulatus	0.624 (0.324, 0.852)	0.425	0.897 (0.731, 0.965)	<0.001	0.970 (0.811, 0.996)	<0.001
Other anophelines	0.467 (0.233, 0.717)	0.809	0.913 (0.762, 0.972)	<0.001	0.855 (0.674, 0.966)	0.002

^a All models include date and household as random effects and season, village and treatment as fixed effects. For An. quadriannulatus, proportion of human exposure occurring indoors (π_i) was significantly affected by village (p = 0.0224) and the proportion caught indoors (P_i) was affected by village and season, p = 0.0177 and 0.0238, respectively. Otherwise, none of the estimates for the proportion of human exposure indoors (π_i), proportion caught indoors (P_i) and proportion caught when most people are indoors (P_fl) were not significantly affected by treatment, season or village (P > 0.05) for An. funestus, An. quadriannulatus or other anophelines.

^b As described in Equation 5 and associated text in the Methods section.

^c As described in Equation 6 and associated text in the Methods section.

^d As described in Equation 4 and associated text in the Methods section