↓ Skip to main content

Gender differences in the use of insecticide-treated nets after a universal free distribution campaign in Kano State, Nigeria: post-campaign survey results

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 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
Gender differences in the use of insecticide-treated nets after a universal free distribution campaign in Kano State, Nigeria: post-campaign survey results
Published in
Malaria Journal, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-12-119
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashley E Garley, Elizabeth Ivanovich, Erin Eckert, Svetlana Negroustoueva, Yazoume Ye

Abstract

Recent expansion in insecticide-treated net (ITN) distribution strategies range from targeting pregnant women and children under five and distributing ITN at antenatal care and immunization programmes, to providing free distribution campaigns to cover an entire population. These changes in strategy raise issues of disparities, such as equity of access and equality in ITN use among different groups, including females and males. Analysis is needed to assess the effects of gender on uptake of key malaria control interventions. A recent post-universal free ITN distribution campaign survey in Kano State, Nigeria offered an opportunity to look at gender effects on ITN use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Nigeria 3 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 148 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 28%
Researcher 19 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 25 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 33%
Social Sciences 19 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 7%
Environmental Science 6 4%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 33 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 19 May 2021.
All research outputs
#3,220,562
of 25,278,281 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#709
of 5,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,985
of 205,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#8
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,278,281 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,894 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 205,766 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.