↓ Skip to main content

Long-term acceptability, durability and bio-efficacy of ZeroVector® durable lining for vector control in Papua New Guinea

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Long-term acceptability, durability and bio-efficacy of ZeroVector® durable lining for vector control in Papua New Guinea
Published in
Malaria Journal, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1742-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph J. Kuadima, Lincoln Timinao, Laura Naidi, Anthony Tandrapah, Manuel W. Hetzel, Cyrille Czeher, Justin Pulford

Abstract

This study examined the acceptability, durability and bio-efficacy of pyrethroid-impregnated durable lining (DL) over a three-year period post-installation in residential homes across Papua New Guinea (PNG). ZeroVector(®) ITPS had previously been installed in 40 homes across four study sites representing a cross section of malaria transmission risk and housing style. Structured questionnaires, DL visual inspections and group interviews (GIs) were completed with household heads at 12- and 36-months post-installation. Three DL samples were collected from all households in which it remained 36-months post-installation to evaluate the bio-efficacy of DL on Anopheles mosquitoes. Bio-efficacy testing followed WHO guidelines for the evaluation of indoor residual spraying. The DL was still intact in 86 and 39% of study homes at the two time periods, respectively. In homes in which the DL was still intact, 92% of household heads considered the appearance at 12-months post installation to be the same as, or better than, that at installation compared to 59% at 36-months post-installation. GIs at both time points confirmed continuing high acceptance of DL, based in large part of the perceived attractiveness and functionality of the material. However, participants frequently asserted that they, or their family members, had ceased or reduced their use of mosquito nets as a result of the DL installation. A total of 16 houses were sampled for bio-efficacy testing across the 4 study sites at 36-months post-installation. Overall, combining all sites and samples, both knock-down at 30 min and mortality at 24 h were 100%. The ZeroVector(®) DL installation remained highly acceptable at 36-months post-installation, the material and fixtures proved durable and the efficacy against malaria vectors did not decrease. However, the DL material had been removed from over 50% of the original study homes 3 years post-installation, largely due to deteriorating housing infrastructure. Furthermore, the presence of the DL installation appeared to reduce ITN use among many participating householders. The study findings suggest DL may not be an appropriate vector control method for large-scale use in the contemporary PNG malaria control programme.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 26%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 9 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 March 2017.
All research outputs
#3,673,338
of 9,138,320 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,457
of 3,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,573
of 253,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#50
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,138,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 59th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,176 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 253,866 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.