Author
Listed:
- Achille Kabore
- Nana-Kwadwo Biritwum
- Philip W Downs
- Ricardo J Soares Magalhaes
- Yaobi Zhang
- Eric A Ottesen
Abstract
Background: Mapping the distribution of schistosomiasis is essential to determine where control programs should operate, but because it is impractical to assess infection prevalence in every potentially endemic community, model-based geostatistics (MBG) is increasingly being used to predict prevalence and determine intervention strategies. Methodology/Principal Findings: To assess the accuracy of MBG predictions for Schistosoma haematobium infection in Ghana, school surveys were evaluated at 79 sites to yield empiric prevalence values that could be compared with values derived from recently published MBG predictions. Based on these findings schools were categorized according to WHO guidelines so that practical implications of any differences could be determined. Using the mean predicted values alone, 21 of the 25 empirically determined ‘high-risk’ schools requiring yearly praziquantel would have been undertreated and almost 20% of the remaining schools would have been treated despite empirically-determined absence of infection – translating into 28% of the children in the 79 schools being undertreated and 12% receiving treatment in the absence of any demonstrated need. Conclusions/Significance: Using the current predictive map for Ghana as a spatial decision support tool by aggregating prevalence estimates to the district level was clearly not adequate for guiding the national program, but the alternative of assessing each school in potentially endemic areas of Ghana or elsewhere is not at all feasible; modelling must be a tool complementary to empiric assessments. Thus for practical usefulness, predictive risk mapping should not be thought of as a one-time exercise but must, as in the current study, be an iterative process that incorporates empiric testing and model refining to create updated versions that meet the needs of disease control operational managers. Author Summary: The challenge of accurately mapping schistosomiasis is a daunting one – particularly because of the highly focal distribution of the disease. Ideally, of course, each specific treatment area would be assessed for infection prevalence and then treated appropriately based on guidelines of the World Health Organization. In practice, however, this is not possible, and a variety of short-cutting techniques have been developed to meet these mapping needs, including geospatial predictive mapping. This paper assesses the accuracy of model-based geostatistics (MBG) predictions for determining treatments projections in Ghana by comparing previously published data using MBG predictions with empirically derived prevalence values for schistosomiasis from school surveys completed at 79 sites. We found that using predictive mapping alone would not have provided reliable information for mass drug administration (MDA) planning – resulting in overtreatment in some areas and most importantly under-treatment in areas that needed it most. Based on our findings, predictive risk mapping cannot be a one-time exercise but must instead be a process that incorporates empiric testing and model refining to create optimised spatial decision support tools that meet the needs of disease control operational managers.
Suggested Citation
Achille Kabore & Nana-Kwadwo Biritwum & Philip W Downs & Ricardo J Soares Magalhaes & Yaobi Zhang & Eric A Ottesen, 2013.
"Predictive vs. Empiric Assessment of Schistosomiasis: Implications for Treatment Projections in Ghana,"
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-8, March.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pntd00:0002051
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002051
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0002051. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.