Skip to main content
. 2021 May 12;18(178):20201030. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2020.1030

Table 2.

Effect of screened windows and door gaps on house entry by An. gambiae s.l. General linearized modelling results, adjusting for house position and night. Data are means (95% CI). Larger drawings of the house typologies are shown in figure 1.

screened window area (m2) (n = 25) no. of An. gambiae s.l. per night (n = 25) adjusted estimates, mean ratio p-value
experiment 1: small-screened windows
Inline graphic two badly fitting small windows (reference) 6.16 (4.07 to 8.25) 1.0
Inline graphic one small-screened window 0.09 6.44 (4.04 to 8.84) 0.91 (0.65 to 1.28) 0.586
Inline graphic two small-screened windows 0.18 3.80 (1.15 to 6.45) 0.60 (0.40 to 0.91) 0.015
Inline graphic one small-screened window and one medium-screened window 0.27 2.60 (1.22 to 3.98) 0.37 (0.22 to 0.64) <0.001
experiment 2: large-screened windows
Inline graphic two badly fitting large windows (reference) 11.04 (7.72 to 14.36) 1.0
Inline graphic one large-screened window 0.50 4.72 (3.16 to 6.28) 0.43 (0.28 to 0.64) <0.001
Inline graphic two large-screened windows 1.00 2.64 (1.55 to 3.73) 0.21 (0.14 to 0.32) <0.001
Inline graphic three large-screened windows 1.50 0.56 (0.15 to 0.97) 0.05 (0.02 to 0.10) <0.001
experiment 3: door gaps
Inline graphic gap above and below the doors, no windows (reference) 2.04 (1.45 to 3.35) 1.0
Inline graphic gaps above the doors, no windows 3.96 (2.43 to 5.49) 1.28 (0.83 to 1.97) 0.259
Inline graphic gap below the doors, no windows 3.28 (2.13 to 4.43) 1.30 (0.81 to 2.09) 0.285
Inline graphic gaps above and below doors, with two small-screened windows 2.92 (1.52 to 4.32) 1.05 (0.63 to 1.76) 0.844