Table 2.

A synthesis of influences to the technical and social aspects of the intervention

	Technical influences	Social influences
Technical design features
1. Removal of carbon dioxide from the blend.	Need for daily replenishment of molasses mixture in all houses to ensure the same blend of odours in all houses.	Mobilisation of women to distribute molasses.
	Cost of procuring molasses.
	Disposal of by-products of fermentation
2. Change from fabric to metal trap cone.	The textile used absorbed the odour cues.
3. Change to trap with rigid plastic base with fine mesh that allowed passage of odorant cues.	Need to increase airflow into the mosquito trap.	More appealing to end users.
4. Change of metal trap cones to plastic.		Researchers’ and residents’ concerns over theft of metallic SMoTS parts.
		Plastic cones cheaper than metal ones.
5. Inclusion of a port for phone charging.		Researchers wishes to provide a direct additional benefit to research participants.
Social design features
1. Community roll-out sequence ballot	Need to maximise possibility of detecting effect of the intervention in complex island geography.	Scientists need for the roll-out to be legitimate and transparent in the eyes of the community.
		Community wishes to have an input in decision making.
2. Creation of CAB	Channel of communication for development of project and problem solving.	Scientists’ need to keep community involved and interested.
3. Choice of consensus method to select house to install with SMoTS in homesteads with multiple houses.		Community wishes to have a say and scientists wish to involve community members in decision making.
		Number of houses in a homestead.