↓ Skip to main content

Field durability of the same type of long-lasting insecticidal net varies between regions in Nigeria due to differences in household behaviour and living conditions

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Field durability of the same type of long-lasting insecticidal net varies between regions in Nigeria due to differences in household behaviour and living conditions
Published in
Malaria Journal, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0640-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Albert Kilian, Hannah Koenker, Emmanuel Obi, Richmond A Selby, Megan Fotheringham, Matthew Lynch

Abstract

With the recent publication of WHO-recommended methods to estimate net survival, comparative analyses from different areas have now become possible. With this in mind, a study was undertaken in Nigeria to compare the performance of a specific long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) product in three socio-ecologically different areas. In addition, the objective was to assess the feasibility of a retrospective study design for durability. In three states, Zamfara in the north, Nasarawa in the centre and Cross River in the south, four local government areas were selected one year after mass distribution of 100-denier polyester LLINs. From a representative sample of 300 households per site that had received campaign nets, an assessment of net survival was made based on rate of loss of nets and the physical condition of surviving nets measured by the proportionate hole index (pHI). Surveys were repeated after two and three years. Over the three-year period 98% of the targeted sample size of 3,720 households was obtained and 94% of the 5,669 campaign nets found were assessed for damage. With increasing time since distribution, recall of having received campaign nets dropped by 11-22% and only 31-87% of nets actually lost were reported. Using a recall bias adjustment, attrition rates were fairly similar in all three sites. The proportion of surviving nets in serviceable condition differed dramatically, however, resulting in an estimated median net survival of 3.0 years in Nasarawa, 4.5 years in Cross River and 4.7 years in Zamfara. Although repairs on damaged nets increased from around 10% at baseline to 21-38% after three years, the average pHI value for each of the four hole size categories did not differ between repaired and unrepaired nets. First, the differences observed in net survival are driven by living conditions and household behaviours and not the LLIN material. Second, recall bias in a retrospective durability study can be significant and while adjustments can be made, enough uncertainty remains that prospective studies on durability are preferable wherever possible. Third, repair does not seem to measurably improve net condition and focus should, therefore, be on improving preventive behaviour.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Kenya 1 2%
Sudan 1 2%
Unknown 56 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 20%
Social Sciences 10 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 10 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 January 2016.
All research outputs
#3,987,241
of 14,291,367 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,358
of 4,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,988
of 223,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,291,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,125 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
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 223,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
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