"In starvation, a bone can also be meat": a mixed methods evaluation of factors associated with discarding of long-lasting insecticidal nets in Bagamoyo, Tanzania.
Bed net
Discarding
Focus group discussions
Long-lasting insecticidal nets
Malaria
Mixed methods
Mosquitoes
Tanzania
Too torn
Journal
Malaria journal
ISSN: 1475-2875
Titre abrégé: Malar J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Mar 2022
24 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
30
08
2021
accepted:
17
03
2022
entrez:
25
3
2022
pubmed:
26
3
2022
medline:
29
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Between 2000 and 2019, more than 1.8 billion long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) were distributed in Africa. While the insecticidal durability of LLINs is around 3 years, nets are commonly discarded 2 years post distribution. This study investigated the factors associated with the decision of users to discard LLINs. A mixed-method sequential explanatory approach using a structured questionnaire followed by focus group discussions (FGDs) to collect information on experiences, views, reasons, how and when LLINs are discarded. Out of 6,526 households that responded to the questionnaire of LLINs durability trial, 160 households were randomly selected from the households in four villages in Bagamoyo Tanzania for FGDs but only 155 households participated in the FGDs. Five of the household representatives couldn't participate due to unexpected circumstances. A total of sixteen FGDs each comprising of 8-10 adults were conducted; older women (40-60 years), older men (40-60 years), younger women (18-39 years), younger men (18-39 years). During the FGDs, participants visually inspected seven samples of LLINs that were "too-torn" based on Proportionate Hole Index recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on LLIN testing, the nets were brought to the discussion and participants had to determine if such LLINs were to be kept or discarded. The study assessed responses from the same participants that attended FGD and also responded to the structured questionnaire, 117 participants fulfilled the criteria, thus data from only 117 participants are analysed in this study. In FGDs, integrity of LLIN influenced the decision to discard or keep a net. Those of older age, women, and householders with lower income were more likely to classify a WHO "too-torn" net as "good". The common methods used to discard LLINs were burning and burying. The findings were seen in the quantitative analysis. For every additional hole, the odds of discarding a WHO "too-torn" LLIN increased [OR = 1.05 (95%CI (1.04-1.07)), p < 0.001]. Younger age group [OR = 4.97 (95%CI (3.25-7.32)), p < 0.001], male-headed households [OR = 6.85 (95%CI (4.44 -10.59)), p < 0.001], and wealthy households [OR = 3.88 (95%CI (2.33-6.46)), p < 0.001] were more likely to discard LLINs. Integrity of LLIN was the main determinant for discarding or keeping LLINs and the decision to discard the net is associated with socioeconomic status of the household, and the age and gender of respondents. WHO "too torn" nets are encouraged to be used instead of none until replacement, and disposal of nets should be based on recommendation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Between 2000 and 2019, more than 1.8 billion long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) were distributed in Africa. While the insecticidal durability of LLINs is around 3 years, nets are commonly discarded 2 years post distribution. This study investigated the factors associated with the decision of users to discard LLINs.
METHODS
METHODS
A mixed-method sequential explanatory approach using a structured questionnaire followed by focus group discussions (FGDs) to collect information on experiences, views, reasons, how and when LLINs are discarded. Out of 6,526 households that responded to the questionnaire of LLINs durability trial, 160 households were randomly selected from the households in four villages in Bagamoyo Tanzania for FGDs but only 155 households participated in the FGDs. Five of the household representatives couldn't participate due to unexpected circumstances. A total of sixteen FGDs each comprising of 8-10 adults were conducted; older women (40-60 years), older men (40-60 years), younger women (18-39 years), younger men (18-39 years). During the FGDs, participants visually inspected seven samples of LLINs that were "too-torn" based on Proportionate Hole Index recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on LLIN testing, the nets were brought to the discussion and participants had to determine if such LLINs were to be kept or discarded. The study assessed responses from the same participants that attended FGD and also responded to the structured questionnaire, 117 participants fulfilled the criteria, thus data from only 117 participants are analysed in this study.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In FGDs, integrity of LLIN influenced the decision to discard or keep a net. Those of older age, women, and householders with lower income were more likely to classify a WHO "too-torn" net as "good". The common methods used to discard LLINs were burning and burying. The findings were seen in the quantitative analysis. For every additional hole, the odds of discarding a WHO "too-torn" LLIN increased [OR = 1.05 (95%CI (1.04-1.07)), p < 0.001]. Younger age group [OR = 4.97 (95%CI (3.25-7.32)), p < 0.001], male-headed households [OR = 6.85 (95%CI (4.44 -10.59)), p < 0.001], and wealthy households [OR = 3.88 (95%CI (2.33-6.46)), p < 0.001] were more likely to discard LLINs.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Integrity of LLIN was the main determinant for discarding or keeping LLINs and the decision to discard the net is associated with socioeconomic status of the household, and the age and gender of respondents. WHO "too torn" nets are encouraged to be used instead of none until replacement, and disposal of nets should be based on recommendation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35331242
doi: 10.1186/s12936-022-04126-5
pii: 10.1186/s12936-022-04126-5
pmc: PMC8944021
doi:
Substances chimiques
Insecticides
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
101Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Malar J. 2021 Mar 29;20(1):171
pubmed: 33781261
Malar J. 2016 Nov 4;15(1):527
pubmed: 27809907
J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2020 Aug;70(8):834-845
pubmed: 32574097
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015 Feb;92(2):286-93
pubmed: 25404079
Malar J. 2020 May 24;19(1):187
pubmed: 32448313
Malar J. 2018 Dec 7;17(1):459
pubmed: 30526608
Malar Res Treat. 2017;2017:7481210
pubmed: 28828192
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012 Sep;87(3):407-411
pubmed: 22802441
Malar J. 2020 Apr 17;19(1):158
pubmed: 32303240
Health Policy Plan. 2006 Nov;21(6):459-68
pubmed: 17030551
Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 25;11(1):6905
pubmed: 33767384
Malar J. 2018 Mar 1;17(1):100
pubmed: 29490649
Malar J. 2013 Sep 22;12:337
pubmed: 24053789
Malar J. 2020 Jan 13;19(1):14
pubmed: 31931828
Malar J. 2014 Sep 01;13:344
pubmed: 25174414
Malar J. 2021 Jan 7;20(1):29
pubmed: 33413383
PLoS Med. 2011 Apr;8(4):e1001019
pubmed: 21532734
Malar J. 2015 Mar 24;14:123
pubmed: 25890233
Nat Commun. 2021 Jun 11;12(1):3589
pubmed: 34117240
Malar J. 2020 Aug 28;19(1):310
pubmed: 32859210
BMC Infect Dis. 2014 Feb 08;14:69
pubmed: 24507444
Int Health. 2021 Jan 14;13(1):57-62
pubmed: 32497203
Malar J. 2013 Jul 15;12:245
pubmed: 23855893
Malar J. 2017 Oct 23;16(1):423
pubmed: 29061127
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 04;11(3):e0151068
pubmed: 26943672
PLoS Med. 2020 Sep 18;17(9):e1003248
pubmed: 32946451
J Med Entomol. 2022 Jan 12;59(1):337-349
pubmed: 34791327
Malar J. 2014 Aug 15;13:322
pubmed: 25128021
Malar J. 2018 Jun 20;17(1):239
pubmed: 29925371
Malar J. 2016 Aug 11;15(1):404
pubmed: 27515306
Malar J. 2020 Feb 4;19(1):58
pubmed: 32019586
Malar J. 2004 Jun 29;3:19
pubmed: 15225349
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 2;12(3):e0173098
pubmed: 28253316
Malar J. 2018 Oct 11;17(1):355
pubmed: 30305127
Malar J. 2016 Mar 18;15:176
pubmed: 26993981
Malar J. 2013 Mar 16;12:99
pubmed: 23497325
Elife. 2015 Dec 29;4:
pubmed: 26714109
J Med Entomol. 2018 Feb 28;55(2):490-495
pubmed: 29267961
Malar J. 2019 Dec 12;18(1):417
pubmed: 31831004
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010 Aug 03;4(8):e773
pubmed: 20689815
Malar J. 2015 Aug 28;14:332
pubmed: 26310788
Parasit Vectors. 2017 Nov 13;10(1):564
pubmed: 29132421
BMC Infect Dis. 2007 Oct 25;7:121
pubmed: 17961211
Malar J. 2013 Feb 01;12:46
pubmed: 23374429
Malar J. 2019 Aug 14;18(1):274
pubmed: 31412865
Malar J. 2020 Sep 19;19(1):341
pubmed: 32950061
Malar J. 2016 Feb 19;15:106
pubmed: 26891696
Source Code Biol Med. 2008 Dec 16;3:17
pubmed: 19087314
Malar J. 2011 Jun 29;10:179
pubmed: 21714859
Demography. 2017 Jun;54(3):1119-1145
pubmed: 28484997
Malar J. 2014 Nov 27;13:464
pubmed: 25430956
Malar J. 2019 Apr 30;18(1):153
pubmed: 31039788
Malar J. 2012 Jun 07;11:183
pubmed: 22676648
Malar J. 2020 Jun 23;19(1):220
pubmed: 32576180
Malar J. 2011 Apr 11;10:83
pubmed: 21477376
Malar J. 2016 Sep 01;15(1):447
pubmed: 27586055
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2007 Dec 12;1(3):e100
pubmed: 18160976
Malar J. 2018 Oct 22;17(1):375
pubmed: 30348167
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2021 Apr 05;104(5):1917-1924
pubmed: 33819169
Malar J. 2020 May 24;19(1):189
pubmed: 32448213
Malar J. 2018 Nov 14;17(1):423
pubmed: 30428916
Malar J. 2018 Oct 16;17(1):362
pubmed: 30326881
Nat Commun. 2017 Oct 26;8(1):1133
pubmed: 29074880
Trends Parasitol. 2015 Jul;31(7):287-96
pubmed: 25985898
Trop Med Int Health. 2014 Nov;19(11):1294-309
pubmed: 25145389
BMC Public Health. 2014 Dec 13;14:1266
pubmed: 25495268
Malariaworld J. 2019 Jul 3;6:9
pubmed: 31293898
Malar J. 2015 Jan 21;14:18
pubmed: 25604427
Malar J. 2019 Sep 18;18(1):320
pubmed: 31533727
Malar J. 2016 Aug 19;15(1):421
pubmed: 27543112