2014
DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-464
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

What happens to lost nets: a multi-country analysis of reasons for LLIN attrition using 14 household surveys in four countries

Abstract: BackgroundWhile significant focus has been given to net distribution, little is known about what is done with nets that leave a household, either to be used by others or when they are discarded. To better understand the magnitude of sharing LLIN between households and patterns of discarding LLIN, the present study pools data from 14 post-campaign surveys to draw larger conclusions about the fate of nets that leave households.MethodsData from 14 sub-national post-campaign surveys conducted in Ghana, Senegal, Ni… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

16
49
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
16
49
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An increase in malaria infection was also observed in other regions. After the initial decrease in malaria infection to 9% (ranging 1-25%), malaria prevalence increased to 14% (ranging from 1-41%) across seven LLINs becoming torn over time and the poor access to new LLINs, which is consistent with findings from other studies [27]. Even with good access to LLIN malaria infection prevalence was still 59%, indicating loss of effectiveness due to other reasons.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…An increase in malaria infection was also observed in other regions. After the initial decrease in malaria infection to 9% (ranging 1-25%), malaria prevalence increased to 14% (ranging from 1-41%) across seven LLINs becoming torn over time and the poor access to new LLINs, which is consistent with findings from other studies [27]. Even with good access to LLIN malaria infection prevalence was still 59%, indicating loss of effectiveness due to other reasons.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…While good household access to LLINs and self-reported individual LLIN use were both associated with reduced risk of malaria infection in the risk factor analysis, the reduction in LLIN coverage and usage in the years after the campaign would have contributed to the observed increase in malaria prevalence in 2014. The reported reasons for not using LLINs included: LLINs becoming torn over time and the poor access to new LLINs, which is consistent with ndings from other studies [27]. Even in households with adequate access to LLINs malaria infection prevalence was still 59%, indicating loss of effectiveness of LLINs due to other reasons.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…In addition to the increasing age of the LLIN, this is likely also related to the in ux of new campaign LLINs particularly in Nampula but also in the other sites prior to the 36-month round. LLINs sold, stolen, or used for other purposes were a relatively small share of all-cause attrition, similar to continent-wide ndings [16]. LLIN were discarded earlier in Inhambane, while in Tete and Nampula households tended to hold on to them longer.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 63%