Assessment of malaria risk in Southeast Asia: a systematic review
Issued Date
2023-12-01
Resource Type
eISSN
14752875
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85175964056
Journal Title
Malaria Journal
Volume
22
Issue
1
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Malaria Journal Vol.22 No.1 (2023)
Suggested Citation
Sa-ngamuang C., Lawpoolsri S., Su Yin M., Barkowsky T., Cui L., Prachumsri J., Haddawy P. Assessment of malaria risk in Southeast Asia: a systematic review. Malaria Journal Vol.22 No.1 (2023). doi:10.1186/s12936-023-04772-3 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/91047
Title
Assessment of malaria risk in Southeast Asia: a systematic review
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: Several countries in Southeast Asia are nearing malaria elimination, yet eradication remains elusive. This is largely due to the challenge of focusing elimination efforts, an area where risk prediction can play an essential supporting role. Despite its importance, there is no standard numerical method to quantify the risk of malaria infection. Thus, there is a need for a consolidated view of existing definitions of risk and factors considered in assessing risk to analyse the merits of risk prediction models. This systematic review examines studies of the risk of malaria in Southeast Asia with regard to their suitability in addressing the challenges of malaria elimination in low transmission areas. Methods: A search of four electronic databases over 2010–2020 retrieved 1297 articles, of which 25 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In each study, examined factors included the definition of the risk and indicators of malaria transmission used, the environmental and climatic factors associated with the risk, the statistical models used, the spatial and temporal granularity, and how the relationship between environment, climate, and risk is quantified. Results: This review found variation in the definition of risk used, as well as the environmental and climatic factors in the reviewed articles. GLM was widely adopted as the analysis technique relating environmental and climatic factors to malaria risk. Most of the studies were carried out in either a cross-sectional design or case–control studies, and most utilized the odds ratio to report the relationship between exposure to risk and malaria prevalence. Conclusions: Adopting a standardized definition of malaria risk would help in comparing and sharing results, as would a clear description of the definition and method of collection of the environmental and climatic variables used. Further issues that need to be more fully addressed include detection of asymptomatic cases and considerations of human mobility. Many of the findings of this study are applicable to other low-transmission settings and could serve as a guideline for further studies of malaria in other regions.