↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge and perception towards net care and repair practice in Ethiopia

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Knowledge and perception towards net care and repair practice in Ethiopia
Published in
Malaria Journal, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-2043-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ayele Zewde, Seth Irish, Adugna Woyessa, Yonas Wuletaw, Honelgn Nahusenay, Semira Abdelmenan, Meaza Demissie, Hanna Gulema, Gunawardena Dissanayake, Sheleme Chibsa, Hiwot Solomon, Meseret A. Yenehun, Amha Kebede, Lena M. Lorenz, Gabriel Ponce-de-Leon, Joseph Keating, Alemayehu Worku, Yemane Berhane

Abstract

Long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) are a key malaria control intervention. Although LLINs are presumed to be effective for 3 years under field or programmatic conditions, net care and repair approaches by users influence the physical and chemical durability. Understanding how knowledge, perception and practices influence net care and repair practices could guide the development of targeted behavioural change communication interventions related to net care and repair in Ethiopia and elsewhere. This population-based, household survey was conducted in four regions of Ethiopia [Amhara, Oromia, Tigray, Southern Nations Nationalities Peoples Region (SNNPR)] in June 2015. A total of 1839 households were selected using multi-stage sampling procedures. The household respondents were the heads of households. A questionnaire was administered and the data were captured electronically. STATA software version 12 was used to analyse the data. Survey commands were used to account for the multi-stage sampling approach. Household descriptive statistics related to characteristics and levels of knowledge and perception on net care and repair are presented. Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with net care and repair perceptions. Less than a quarter of the respondents (22.3%: 95% CI 20.4-24.3%) reported adequate knowledge of net care and repair; 24.6% (95% CI 22.7-26.5%) of the respondents reported receiving information on net care and repair in the previous 6 months. Thirty-five per cent of the respondents (35.1%: 95% CI 32.9-37.4%) reported positive perceptions towards net care and repair. Respondents with adequate knowledge on net care and repair (AOR 1.58: 95% CI 1.2-2.02), and those who discussed net care and repair with their family (AOR 1.47: 95% CI 1.14-1.89) had higher odds of having positive perceptions towards net care and repair. The low level of reported knowledge on net care and repair, as well as the low level of reported positive perception towards net repair need to be addressed. Targeted behavioural change communication campaigns could be used to target specific groups; increased net care and repair would lead to longer lasting nets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 23%
Student > Master 9 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 6%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 12 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#19,305,317
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#5,042
of 5,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,610
of 327,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#112
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 327,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.