Fig 1.
Map showing the department (color shadings), evaluation units (EUs, red lines) and the locations of the 146 villages (black dots) surveyed in the southern part of Gabon. The Gabon shapefile was obtained from World Bank Data Catalog (https://data.humdata.org/dataset/geoboundaries-admin-boundaries-for-gabon).
Fig 2.
Village-level empirical prevalence of Loa Ab plotted against LoaScope mf prevalence and the LoaScope prevalence of high intensity (> 20, 000 mf/ml).
Table 1.
Monte Carlo maximum likelihood estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals resulting from the joint modelling as described in section geostatistical modelling framework.
Fig 3.
Map showing the classification as safe (blue), unsafe (red) or don’t know (purple) for MDA at the pixels using “LoaScope and Ab data” (left panel), “Ab data alone” (middle panel) and “Two-stage strategy” (right panel). The Gabon shapefile was obtained from World Bank Data Catalog (https://data.humdata.org/dataset/geoboundaries-admin-boundaries-for-gabon).
Fig 4.
Map showing the classification as safe (blue), unsafe (red) or don’t know (purple) for MDA at the EUs using “LoaScope and Ab data” (left panel), “Ab data alone” (middle panel) and “Two-stage strategy” (right panel). The Gabon shapefile was obtained from World Bank Data Catalog (https://data.humdata.org/dataset/geoboundaries-admin-boundaries-for-gabon).
Fig 5.
Map showing the classification as safe (blue), unsafe (red) or don’t know (purple) for MDA at the departments using “LoaScope and Ab data” (left panel), “Ab data alone” (middle panel) and “Two-stage strategy” (right panel). The Gabon shapefile was obtained from World Bank Data Catalog (https://data.humdata.org/dataset/geoboundaries-admin-boundaries-for-gabon).
Table 2.
Contingency table comparing the performance of the three strategies at the pixel-level.
LS and Ab denotes using the joint model of LoaScope and Ab data; Ab only denotes using the Ab data only, two-stage denotes using the Ab data first, followed by joint analysis of LoaScope and Ab data to re-classify the don’t know (DK) areas.
Table 3.
Contingency table comparing the performance of the three strategies at the EU-level.
LS and Ab denotes using the joint model of LoaScope and Ab data; Ab only denotes using the Ab data only, two-stage denotes using the Ab data first, followed by joint analysis of LoaScope and Ab data to re-classify the don’t know (DK) areas.
Fig 6.
Simulation result for safety classification.
Plot showing the proportion of correctly classified EUs as safe for different combinations of the number of sampled villages and the number of people sampled per village, using both LoaScope and Ab data (orange dots), only Ab data (green dots) or two-stage strategy (purple dots). Note that 146 is the total number of surveyed villages across the entire geographic area; 96 corresponds to 12 villages per department; and 48 corresponds to 6 villages per department.
Fig 7.
Simulation result for unsafety classification.
Plot showing the proportion of correctly classified EUs as unsafe for different combinations of the number of sampled villages and the number of people sampled per village, using both LoaScope and Ab data (orange dots), only Ab data (green dots) or two-stage strategy (purple dots). Note that 146 is the total number of surveyed villages across the entire geographic area; 96 corresponds to 12 villages per department; and 48 corresponds to 6 villages per department.