Identifying and characterizing high-risk populations in pilot malaria elimination districts in Madagascar: a mixed-methods study

Abstract

Abstract Background In Madagascar, the districts of Antsirabe II, Faratsiho and Antsiranana I have relatively low malaria incidence rates and have been selected by the National Malaria Control Programme for pilot elimination strategies. The districts have residual transmission despite increasing coverage and quality of malaria services. This study sought to identify priority subpopulations at highest risk for malaria and collect information on intervention preferences and methods that will inform subnational tailoring of malaria service delivery. Methods This mixed methods study employed (i) a quantitative malaria risk factor assessment in Antsirabe II and Faratsiho comprising a test-negative frequency matched case–control study and a qualitative risk factor assessment in Antsiranana I; and (ii) a qualitative formative assessment in all three districts. For the case–control study, a mixed effects logistic regression was used with age, sex and district included as fixed effects and health facility included as a random effect. The qualitative risk factor assessment used semi-structured interview guides and key informant interviews. For the qualitative formative assessment in the three districts, a summary report was generated following semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with high-risk populations (HRPs) and stakeholders. Results In Antsirabe II and Faratsiho districts, rice agriculture workers, outdoor/manual workers, particularly miners, and those with jobs that required travel or overnight stays, especially itinerant vendors, had higher odds of malaria infection compared to other (non-rice) agricultural workers. In Antsiranana I, respondents identified non-rice farmers, mobile vendors, and students as HRPs. Risk factors among these groups included overnight stays and travel patterns combined with a lack of malaria prevention tools. HRPs reported treatment cost and distance to the health facility as barriers to care and expressed interest in presumptive treatment and involvement of gatekeepers or people who have influence over intervention access or participation. Conclusions The study results illustrate the value of in-depth assessments of risk behaviours, access to services and prevention tools, surveillance and prevention strategies, and the involvement of gatekeepers in shaping subnational tailoring to reach previously unreached populations and address residual transmission in elimination settings.