↓ Skip to main content

The effect of small solar powered ‘Bͻkͻͻ’ net fans on mosquito net use: results from a randomized controlled cross-over trial in southern Ghana

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

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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 effect of small solar powered ‘Bͻkͻͻ’ net fans on mosquito net use: results from a randomized controlled cross-over trial in southern Ghana
Published in
Malaria Journal, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1654-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olivier J. T. Briët, Joshua O. Yukich, Constanze Pfeiffer, William Miller, Mulako S. Jaeger, Nitin Khanna, Samuel Oppong, Peter Nardini, Collins K. Ahorlu, Joseph Keating

Abstract

Long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) are ineffective malaria transmission prevention tools if they are unused. Discomfort due to heat is the most commonly reported reason for not using nets, but this problem is largely unaddressed. With increasing rural electrification and the dropping price of solar power, fans could improve comfort inside nets and be affordable to populations in malaria endemic areas. Here, results are presented from a pilot randomized controlled cross-over study testing the effect of fans on LLIN use. Eighty-three households from two rural communities in Greater Accra, Ghana, randomized into three groups, participated in a 10-month cross-over trial. After a screening survey to identify eligible households, all households received new LLINs. Bͻkͻͻ net fan systems (one fan per member) were given to households in Group 1 and water filters were given to households in Group 2. At mid-point, Group 1 and 2 crossed over interventions. Households in Group 1 and 2 participated in fortnightly surveys on households' practices related to nets, fans and water filters, while households in Group 3 were surveyed only at screening, mid-point and study end. Entomological and weather data were collected throughout the study. Analysis took both 'per protocol' (PP) and 'intention to treat' (ITT) approaches. The mid- and end-point survey data from Group 1 and 2 were analysed using Firth logistic regressions. Fortnightly survey data from all groups were analysed using logistic regressions with random effects. Provision of fans to households appeared to increase net use in this study. Although the increase in net use explained by fans was not significant in the primary analyses (ITT odds ratio 3.24, p > 0.01; PP odds ratio = 1.17, p > 0.01), it was significant in secondary PP analysis (odds ratio = 1.95, p < 0.01). Net use was high at screening and even higher after provision of new LLINs and with follow up. Fan use was 90-100% depending on the fortnightly visit. This pilot study could not provide definitive evidence that fans increase net use. A larger study with additional statistical power is needed to assess this association across communities with diverse environmental and socio-demographic characteristics.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 19 23%
Student > Master 15 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 23 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 26 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 15%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 27 32%

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 02 April 2019.
All research outputs
#12,838,098
of 14,546,884 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,900
of 4,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,796
of 266,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,546,884 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 266,417 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them