Table 1

Characteristics of spatially targeted interventions for HIV, TB, leprosy and malaria

Reference, yearOutcomeEffect of intervention*Risk of bias assessment
HIV
 Goswami et al29Comparison of case detection yield between hotspot intervention areas and a county STD clinic over the same period (2009–2011)HIV prevalence was higher among community screened participants (8/240, 3%, 95% CI1.4% to 6.5%) compared with the Wake County STD clinic (64/15936, 0.4%, 95% CI 0.3% to 0.5%) with a risk ratio of (8.3, 95% CI 4.0 to 17.1), p<0.001.Moderate
Tuberculosis (TB)
 Moonan et al24Yield of TB case detection in hotspots.Targeted screening identified one person with TB for every 83 screened and one person with LTBI for every five screened. The yield of the targeted approach was considered to be more than what would be expected in a county with an active TB notification rate of 5.7 per 100 000 population year.Critical
 Goswami et al29Comparison of case detection yield of LTBI between hotspot areas and county TB clinic over the same period (2009–2011)LTBI prevalence was higher among community screened participants (36/234, 15%, 95% CI 11.0% to 21.7%) versus (541/9024, 6%, 95% CI 5.6% to 6.6%) at the TB clinic with a risk ratio of (2.5, 95% CI 1.9 to 3.5), p<0.001.Moderate
 Cegielski et al31A before and after intervention comparison of mapped TB notification rates between 1985–1995 and 1996–2006TB notification rates in the targeted hotspots declined from 39.6 per 1 000 000 people per year (95% CI 30.4 to 48.8) from 1985 to 1995 to zero from 1996 to 2006 (p<0.001)Serious
Leprosy (three studies)
 De Souza Dias et al32Percent of notified cases attributable to the intervention, and before and after intervention case notification rate comparison.Active case finding identified 50% of the total cases that were diagnosed in 2005. The case notification rate in 2005 was higher compared with pre intervention year 2004, 9.34 per 10 000 versus 5.16 per 10 000, respectively.Serious
 Jim et al33Yield of leprosy case detection during intervention period compared with the preintervention period and reduction in households that needed to be screened.Eight-fold decrease in the number of households that needed to be screened from 2007 to 2009. While still identifying a similar number of new cases to prespatially targeted active case finding period 2002–2006.Moderate
 Barreto et al25The yield of case detection of leprosy cases in school children in hotspot intervention schools versus in children from randomly selected schools.In the hotspot school’s (11/134, 8.2%, 95% CI 3.5% to 13.0%) students with a mean age of 10 years were diagnosed with leprosy. While (63/1592, 3.9%, 95% CI 3.0% to 4.9%) students from randomly selected schools with a mean age of 12 years were diagnosed with leprosy with a risk ratio of (2.1, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.8), p<0.05.Moderate
Malaria (four studies)
 Srivastava et al34Difference in absolute numbers of notified malaria cases between 2006 and 2007.An absolute reduction in numbers of notified cases in 2007 (N=90 829) from the notified cases in 2006 (N=96 042), (5.7%, 95% CI 4.7% to 6.7%), p<0.05.Critical
 Herdiana et al35Change of malaria notification rates from preintervention to postintervention period.30-fold reduction in malaria notifications from 3.83 per 1000 in 2008 to 0.13 per 1000 in 2011.Serious
 Bousema et al36Change in parasite prevalence in the evaluation zones (1–500 m from hotspots) of intervention clusters versus control clustersThe first evaluation zone 1–249 m at eighth week (3.6%, 95% CI −2.6% to 9.7%), p=0.216 and the second evaluation zone 250–500 m at eighth week (3.8%, 95% CI −2.4% to 10.0%), p=0.187. The first evaluation zone 1–249 m at 16th week (1.0%, 95% CI −7.0% to 9.1%), p=0.713 and the second evaluation zone 250–500 m at 16th week (1.0%, 95% CI −8.3% to 10.4%), p=0.809Low

  • *Results calculated from the data published in the papers.

  • LTBI, latent tuberculosis Infection; m, metres; N, number; STD, sexually transmitted disease.