↓ Skip to main content

Multi-country comparison of delivery strategies for mass campaigns to achieve universal coverage with insecticide-treated nets: what works best?

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Multi-country comparison of delivery strategies for mass campaigns to achieve universal coverage with insecticide-treated nets: what works best?
Published in
Malaria Journal, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1108-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Celine Zegers de Beyl, Hannah Koenker, Angela Acosta, Emmanuel Obi Onyefunafoa, Emmanuel Adegbe, Anna McCartney-Melstad, Richmond Ato Selby, Albert Kilian

Abstract

The use of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) is widely recognized as one of the main interventions to prevent malaria. High ITN coverage is needed to reduce transmission. Mass distribution campaigns are the fastest way to rapidly scale up ITN coverage. However, the best strategy to distribute ITNs to ensure household coverage targets are met is still under debate. This paper presents results from 14 post-campaign surveys in five African countries to assess whether the campaign strategy used had any effect on distribution outcome. Data from 13,901 households and 14 campaigns from Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, South Sudan and Uganda, were obtained through representative cross-sectional questionnaire surveys, conducted three to 16 months after ITN distribution. All evaluations used a multi-stage sampling approach and similar methods for data collection. Key outcomes examined were the proportion of households having received a net from the campaign and the proportion of households with one net for every two people. Household registration rates proved to be the most important determinant of a household receiving any net from the campaign (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 74.8; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 55.3-101.1) or had enough ITNs for all household members (adjusted OR 19.1; 95 % CI: 55.34-101.05). Factors that positively influenced registration were larger household size (adjusted OR 1.7; 95 % CI: 1.5-2.1) and families with children under five (adjusted OR 1.4; 95 % CI: 1.2-1.6). Urban residence was negatively associated with receipt of a net from the campaign (adjusted OR 0.73; 95 % CI: 0.58-0.92). Registration was equitable in most campaigns except for Uganda and South Sudan, where the poorest wealth quintiles were less likely to have been reached. After adjusting for other factors, delivery strategy (house-to-house vs. fixed point) and distribution approach (integrated versus stand-alone) did not show a systematic impact on registration or owning any ITN. Campaigns that used a universal coverage allocation strategy were more effective in increasing the proportion of households with enough ITNs than campaigns that used a fixed number of ITNs. Registering based on counting usual sleeping spaces resulted in higher levels of households with one net per two people among those receiving any campaign net (adjusted OR 1.6; 95 % CI: 1.07-2.48) than campaigns that registered based on the number of household members. All of the campaigns, irrespective of strategy, successfully increased ownership of at least one ITN. Delivery method and distribution approach were not associated with receipt of at least one ITN from the campaign. Rather, the key determining factor for receipt of at least one ITN from the campaign was a successful registration process, which depends on the ability of community volunteers to reach households during the exercise. Universal coverage campaigns, especially those that used a sleeping space allocation strategy, were more effective in increasing the proportion of households with enough ITNs. Maximizing registration completeness and using a universal coverage allocation strategy are therefore likely to improve campaign outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Sudan 1 1%
Unknown 74 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 28%
Student > Master 18 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 26%
Social Sciences 11 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 15 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,647,014
of 14,122,662 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,158
of 4,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,744
of 338,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,122,662 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,075 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 71% 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 338,928 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 74% 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