TY  - JOUR
T1  - Integrated Vector Management Is a Portfolio Problem: Choosing Complementary Interventions across Larval, Adult, Household, Biological, and Community Domains
A1  - Amira Khalil
A1  - Sara Fathy
A1  - Mahmoud Adel
A1  - Hany Nabil
JF  - Entomology and Applied Science Letters
JO  - Entomol Appl Sci Lett
SN  - 2349-2864
Y1  - 2025
VL  - 12
IS  - 4
DO  - 10.51847/RLhf0A93fT
SP  - 47
EP  - 57
N2  - Vector-control programmes increasingly operate under simultaneous pressures from insecticide resistance, behavioural avoidance, heterogeneous breeding habitats, changing transmission seasons, uneven household protection, and constrained implementation capacity. Although integrated vector management is intended to address this complexity, intervention packages are frequently described as integrated merely because they contain several components. This obscures the distinction between accumulating interventions and constructing a complementary portfolio. This article develops an original, explicitly non-validated conceptual logic for selecting and evaluating vector-control portfolios across larval, adult, household, environmental, biological, and community domains. The approach integrates evidence on intervention mechanisms, life-stage targets, human-exposure pathways, resistance, effective coverage, timing, operational dependencies, community participation, and programme evaluation. The synthesis indicates that portfolio performance depends less on component count than on whether interventions address distinct transmission opportunities, avoid unjustified duplication, remain active during relevant exposure periods, reach the populations and habitats that generate risk, and retain effectiveness under local resistance and implementation conditions. Evidence also demonstrates that favourable component efficacy cannot be assumed to produce programme effectiveness and that community participation does not ensure sustained or equitable implementation. Existing findings are constrained by heterogeneous endpoints, limited comparisons of marginal and joint effects, context-specific delivery systems, incomplete linkage between entomological and epidemiological outcomes, and insufficient evaluation of governance, durability, opportunity costs, and equity. The central implication is that integrated vector management should be designed and tested as an adaptive portfolio problem: each component requires an explicit function, precondition, failure mode, monitoring indicator, and rule for retention, modification, replacement, or removal. Prospective validation must determine when proposed complementarities produce additional protection and when apparent integration represents overlap, avoidable burden, or correlated failure.
UR  - https://easletters.com/article/integrated-vector-management-is-a-portfolio-problem-choosing-complementary-interventions-across-lar-pftshqcdcssxgji
ER  -