Spatial exploration of the impact of cattle on risk of malarial infection using data from a cluster randomised trial.

Authors

Almudena Sanz Gutierrez, Rachel Otuko, Kexin Xie, Isaiah Omondi, Mercy Kariukiu, Paula Ruiz-Castillo, Caroline Wanjiku, Aurelia Brazeal, Mwanajuma Ngama, Truphena Onyango, Karisa Kazungu, Mary Mael, Winnie Wangari, Khadija Nuru, Isaac Ringera, Jamal Mbarak, Shadrack Mramba, Yegon Kibet, Naomi Nyambura, Scholastica Wanjiru, Felix Hammann, Francisco Saute, Joseph Mwangangi, N Regina Rabinovich, Marta Maia, Cassidy Rist, Carlos Chaccour

Published in

BMJ global health. Volume 11. Issue 8. Aug 03, 2026. Epub Aug 03, 2026.

Abstract

In the context of stalled progress in reducing malaria burden and ongoing efforts to develop novel vector control methods, there is ongoing debate about the impact of livestock on malaria transmission. Zooprophylaxis refers to the use of livestock as an alternate source of blood that diverts mosquito vectors away from humans, potentially reducing malaria transmission. However, conflicting evidence highlights the concept of zoopotentiation, where livestock may instead increase vector populations and enhance malaria transmission. Prior studies that explore these concepts have examined livestock as a household asset, which does not account for the geospatial effect of animals owned by neighbours around the home.
We implemented a novel spatial approach to explore the impact of cattle on the risk of malarial infection in coastal Kenya. Using data with high granularity from a recent randomised controlled trial, we measured the presence of animals at increasing concentric areas around the household. We fit binomial regression models with generalised estimating equations to explore how cattle density and cattle-to-human-ratio measures were related to malaria prevalence in children 5-15 years old, accounting for relevant environmental and socio-economic variables.
Our findings show that cattle density measured at 400, 500, and 600 m around the household (ORs: 1.63, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.21; 1.84, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.80 and 2.04, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.67, respectively) and cattle-to-human ratio at 500 and 600 m (ORs: 2.73, 95% CI 1.45 to 5.41 and 2.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 4.86, respectively) are significantly related to higher odds of testing positive for malaria. We did not find a significant association at closer distances (<400 m) or when cattle were evaluated only as a household asset.
To better understand the impact of livestock on malaria transmission and potentially develop vector control strategies that account for these impacts, future research should consider animals as an environmental exposure and not only as a household asset.

PMID:
42547249
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 04 Aug 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.