↓ Skip to main content

A longitudinal study of the durability of long-lasting insecticidal nets in Zambia

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 (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

7 tweeters


35 Dimensions

Readers on

61 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.
A longitudinal study of the durability of long-lasting insecticidal nets in Zambia
Published in
Malaria Journal, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1154-4
Pubmed ID

Kathrine R. Tan, Jane Coleman, Barbara Smith, Busiku Hamainza, Cecilia Katebe-Sakala, Casey Kean, Ashley Kowal, Jodi Vanden Eng, Tiffany K. Parris, Carla T. Mapp, Stephen C. Smith, Robert Wirtz, Mulakwa Kamuliwo, Allen S. Craig


A key goal of malaria control is to achieve universal access to, and use of, long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) among people at risk for malaria. Quantifying the number of LLINs needed to achieve and maintain universal coverage requires knowing when nets need replacement. Longitudinal studies have observed physical deterioration in LLINs well before the assumed net lifespan of 3 years. The objective of this study was to describe attrition, physical integrity and insecticide persistence of LLINs over time to assist with better quantification of nets needing replacement. 999 LLINs distributed in 2011 in two highly endemic provinces in Zambia were randomly selected, and were enrolled at 12 months old. LLINs were followed every 6 months up to 30 months of age. Holes were counted and measured (finger, fist, and head method) and a proportional hole index (pHI) was calculated. Households were surveyed about net care and repair and if applicable, reasons for attrition. Functional survival was defined as nets with a pHI <643 and present for follow-up. At 12 and 24 months of age, 74 LLINs were randomly selected for examination of insecticidal activity and content using bioassay and chemical analysis methods previously described by the World Health Organization (WHO). A total of 999 LLINs were enrolled; 505 deltamethrin-treated polyester nets and 494 permethrin-treated polyethylene nets. With 74 used to examine insecticide activity, 925 were available for full follow-up. At 30 months, 325 (33 %) LLINs remained. Net attrition was primarily due to disposal (29 %). Presence of repairs and use over a reed mat were significantly associated with larger pHIs. By 30 months, only 56 % of remaining nets met criteria for functional survival. A shorter functional survival was associated with having been washed. At 24 months, nets had reduced insecticidal activity (57 % met WHO minimal criteria) and content (5 % met WHO target insecticide content). The median functional survival time for LLINs observed the study was 2.5-3 years and insecticide activity and content were markedly decreased by 2 years. A better measure of net survival incorporating insecticidal field effectiveness, net physical integrity, and attrition is needed.

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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Sudan 1 2%
Ghana 1 2%
Unknown 58 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 30%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 20%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 10 16%

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 13 March 2016.
All research outputs
of 16,121,523 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
of 4,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 267,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,121,523 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 4,537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. 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 267,603 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 70% 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