↓ Skip to main content

The underlying reasons for very high levels of bed net use, and higher malaria infection prevalence among bed net users than non-users in the Tanzanian city of Dar es Salaam: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The underlying reasons for very high levels of bed net use, and higher malaria infection prevalence among bed net users than non-users in the Tanzanian city of Dar es Salaam: a qualitative study
Published in
Malaria Journal, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-2067-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Msellemu, Aloysia Shemdoe, Christina Makungu, Yeromini Mlacha, Khadija Kannady, Stefan Dongus, Gerry F. Killeen, Angel Dillip

Abstract

Bed nets reduce malaria-related illness and deaths, by forming a protective barrier around people sleeping under them. When impregnated with long-lasting insecticide formulations they also repel or kill mosquitoes attempting to feed upon sleeping humans, and can even suppress entire populations of malaria vectors that feed predominantly upon humans. Nevertheless, an epidemiological study in 2012 demonstrated higher malaria prevalence among bed net users than non-users in urban Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Focus group discussions were conducted with women from four selected wards of Dar es Salaam city, focusing on four major themes relating to bed net use behaviours: (1) reasons for bed net use, (2) reasons for not using bed nets, (3) stimuli or reminders for people to use a bed net (4) perceived reasons for catching malaria while using a bed net. An analytical method by framework grouping of relevant themes was used address key issues of relevance to the study objectives. Codes were reviewed and grouped into categories and themes. All groups said the main reason for bed net use was protection against malaria. Houses with well-screened windows, with doors that shut properly, and that use insecticidal sprays against mosquitoes, were said not to use bed nets, while frequent attacks from malaria was the main stimulus for people to use bed nets. Various reasons were mentioned as potential reasons that compromise bed net efficacy, the most common of which were: (1) bed net sharing by two or more people, especially if one occupant tends to come to bed late at night, and does not tuck in the net 71%; (2) one person shares the bed but does not use the net, moving it away from the side on which s/he sleeps 68%; (3) ineffective usage habits, called ulalavi, in which a sprawling sleeper either touches the net while sleeping up against it or leaves a limb hanging outside of it 68%. Less common reasons mentioned included: (1) Small bed nets which become un-tucked at night (31%); (2) Bed nets with holes large enough to allow mosquitoes to pass (28%); and (3) Going to bed late after already being bitten outdoors (24%). Behaviours associated with bed net use like; bed sharing, bed net non compliant-bedfellow, sleeping pattern like ulalavi and some physical bed net attributes compromise its effectiveness and supposedly increase of malaria infection to bed net users. While some well-screened houses looked to instigate low malaria prevalence to non-bed net users.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 19%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Librarian 3 3%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 33 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 39 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 October 2017.
All research outputs
#19,162,324
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#5,112
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,777
of 332,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#125
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.