Table 5.
Knowledge of anopheline breeding habitats by study participants from LSM villages
| Characteristic | Frequency of responses (%) | Statistic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Participants from the general community | HAs+LSM committee members | ||
| Total responses | 767 | 466 | |
| Pit latrine | 79 (10.3) | 45 (9.7) | χ2 = 0.193; df = 1; P = 0.660 |
| Rice paddies | 4 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) | χ2 = 2.139; df = 1; P = 0.144 |
| Wells | 83 (10.8) | 63 (13.5) | χ2 = 6.551; df = 1; P = 0.010 |
| Drainage channels | 30 (3.9) | 12 (2.6) | χ2 = 0.751; df = 1; P = 0.386 |
| Borehole run-offs | 133 (17.3) | 47 (10.1) | χ2 = 9.059; df = 1; P = 0.003 |
| Dams | 97 (12.6) | 72 (15.5) | χ2 = 7.096; df = 1; P = 0.008 |
| Stream beds | 59 (7.7) | 42 (9.0) | χ2 = 2.676; df = 1; P = 0.102 |
| Freshwater marshes | 67 (8.7) | 35 (7.5) | χ2 = 0.007; df = 1; P = 0.934 |
| Tyre tracks | 4 (0.5) | 2 (0.4) | χ2 = 0.005; df = 1; P = 0.945 |
| Brick pits | 89 (11.6) | 40 (8.6) | χ2 = 1.023; df = 1; P = 0.312 |
| Construction ditches | 22 (2.9) | 25 (5.4) | χ2 = 7.862; df = 1; P = 0.005 |
| Hoof prints | 2 (0.3) | 16 (3.4) | χ2 = 24.41; df = 1; P < 0.001 |
| Ponds | 14 (1.8) | 10 (2.1) | χ2 = 0.546; df = 1; P = 0.460 |
| Rain pools | 48 (6.3) | 27 (5.8) | χ2 = 0.070; df = 1; P = 0.792 |
| Run-off from natural source | 9 (1.2) | 2 (0.4) | χ2 = 1.349; df = 1; P = 0.246 |
| Water storage containers | 10 (1.3) | 25 (5.4) | χ2 = 22.457; df = 1; P < 0.001 |
| Tree holes | 1 (0.1) | 0 (0.0) | χ2 = 0.532; df = 1; P = 0.466 |
| Bathroom run-offs | 13 (1.7) | 3 (0.6) | χ2 = 1.848; df = 1; P = 0.174 |
| Any place with water | 1 (0.1) | 0 (0.0) | χ2 = 0.532; df = 1; P = 0.466 |
| No idea | 2 (0.3) | 0 (0.0) | χ2 = 1.065; df = 1; P = 0.302 |
HA = health animator; LSM = larval source management.
The χ2 tests indicate comparisons between participants from the general community and HAs+LSM committee members. P values in bold are significant at alpha = 0.05.