Comparing insecticide-treated nets access-use based on universal household and population indicators vis-a-vis measures adapted to sleeping spaces in Ethiopia.
Journal
Malaria journal
ISSN: 1475-2875
Titre abrégé: Malar J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Aug 2021
28 Aug 2021
Historique:
received:
17
03
2021
accepted:
19
08
2021
entrez:
29
8
2021
pubmed:
30
8
2021
medline:
5
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) access-use has been pivotal monitoring indicator for malaria prevention and control, particularly in resource limited settings. The objective of the study was to compare ITN access-use based on universal household and population indicators and measures adapted to sleeping spaces. A cross-sectional study was conducted in five districts of Jimma Zone, Ethiopia, March, 2019. 762 HHs were sampled for the survey. Multi-stage followed by simple random sampling used. Monitoring and evaluation reference group's (MERG's) indicators were used for measuring ITN access-use. MERG's indicators are each adapted ITN access-use to sleeping spaces. Household (ownership, saturation and sufficiency) and population access and household members' status of last night sleeping under ITN compared based on the two models. Differences of estimates of ITN access-use based on the two methods reported as magnitude of over/under estimations, at p-value < 0.05. Based on MERG's approach, the study revealed household (HH) based indicators as such: HH ownership of at least 1 ITN (92.6%), sufficiency of ITN for every two people in HH (50.3%), and saturation of ITN for every 2 people in HHs with any ITN (54.6%). Moreover, population based indicators were: population with ITN access (P3 = 78.6%), people who slept under ITN previous night (63.0%), people who slept under ITN among who accessed it (73.1%), ITN use-gap (26.9%). Equivalent indicators of HH ownership, sufficiency, saturation, and people accessed at where they actually slept, and people slept under ITN among those accessed at where they slept estimated at 71.3%, 49.4%, 69.3%, 66.3%, and 92.1%, respectively. MERG's approach over-estimated ownership, people's access, and behaviour-failures by 21.3%, 12.3%, 19.0%, respectively. Over-estimation occurred for reasons such as many sleeping spaces lack ITN and > 2 people actually slept per sleeping space. MERG's universal indicators over estimated households and populations ITN access-use as a result of absence of measures capturing access-use values at spaces where people actually slept. Consequently, measures adapted to sleeping contexts revealed potential misdistributions practiced when the existing indicators are in use. Insertion of sleeping spaces into existing approach will be worthwhile and needs to be promoted as it improves curiosity in ITN distribution, produces closer estimates and prevents malaria prevention and control programmes from overlooking access-use challenges.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) access-use has been pivotal monitoring indicator for malaria prevention and control, particularly in resource limited settings. The objective of the study was to compare ITN access-use based on universal household and population indicators and measures adapted to sleeping spaces.
METHODS
METHODS
A cross-sectional study was conducted in five districts of Jimma Zone, Ethiopia, March, 2019. 762 HHs were sampled for the survey. Multi-stage followed by simple random sampling used. Monitoring and evaluation reference group's (MERG's) indicators were used for measuring ITN access-use. MERG's indicators are each adapted ITN access-use to sleeping spaces. Household (ownership, saturation and sufficiency) and population access and household members' status of last night sleeping under ITN compared based on the two models. Differences of estimates of ITN access-use based on the two methods reported as magnitude of over/under estimations, at p-value < 0.05.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Based on MERG's approach, the study revealed household (HH) based indicators as such: HH ownership of at least 1 ITN (92.6%), sufficiency of ITN for every two people in HH (50.3%), and saturation of ITN for every 2 people in HHs with any ITN (54.6%). Moreover, population based indicators were: population with ITN access (P3 = 78.6%), people who slept under ITN previous night (63.0%), people who slept under ITN among who accessed it (73.1%), ITN use-gap (26.9%). Equivalent indicators of HH ownership, sufficiency, saturation, and people accessed at where they actually slept, and people slept under ITN among those accessed at where they slept estimated at 71.3%, 49.4%, 69.3%, 66.3%, and 92.1%, respectively. MERG's approach over-estimated ownership, people's access, and behaviour-failures by 21.3%, 12.3%, 19.0%, respectively. Over-estimation occurred for reasons such as many sleeping spaces lack ITN and > 2 people actually slept per sleeping space.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
MERG's universal indicators over estimated households and populations ITN access-use as a result of absence of measures capturing access-use values at spaces where people actually slept. Consequently, measures adapted to sleeping contexts revealed potential misdistributions practiced when the existing indicators are in use. Insertion of sleeping spaces into existing approach will be worthwhile and needs to be promoted as it improves curiosity in ITN distribution, produces closer estimates and prevents malaria prevention and control programmes from overlooking access-use challenges.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34454501
doi: 10.1186/s12936-021-03887-9
pii: 10.1186/s12936-021-03887-9
pmc: PMC8403356
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
355Subventions
Organisme : USAID
ID : AID-663-A-00010
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Malar J. 2010 May 18;9:133
pubmed: 20482776
PLoS One. 2020 Jun 25;15(6):e0235189
pubmed: 32584891
Trop Med Health. 2019 Jan 25;47:11
pubmed: 30700970
Malar J. 2014 May 17;13:183
pubmed: 24885653
Malar J. 2013 Jul 26;12:259
pubmed: 23890257
Trop Med Int Health. 2015 Dec;20(12):1685-95
pubmed: 26338026
Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2016 May 31;9:101-12
pubmed: 27330332
BMC Public Health. 2019 Sep 3;19(1):1216
pubmed: 31481054
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 31;9(7):e103780
pubmed: 25080267
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37927
pubmed: 22666414
Malar J. 2021 Apr 20;20(1):195
pubmed: 33879186
Malar J. 2018 Feb 06;17(1):69
pubmed: 29409511
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2011 Apr 06;4:73-83
pubmed: 21544249
BMC Public Health. 2018 Apr 11;18(1):484
pubmed: 29642883
BMC Public Health. 2015 Dec 29;15:1304
pubmed: 26712366
Malar J. 2012 Sep 07;11:313
pubmed: 22958441
Malar J. 2015 Oct 06;14:390
pubmed: 26445341
Malar J. 2018 Apr 24;17(1):173
pubmed: 29690873
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Oct 27;14(11):
pubmed: 29077052
Front Public Health. 2018 Feb 01;6:7
pubmed: 29450195
Infect Dis Poverty. 2018 Nov 5;7(1):103
pubmed: 30392470
Malar J. 2018 Aug 2;17(1):280
pubmed: 30071875
Malar J. 2020 Sep 11;19(1):331
pubmed: 32917225