↓ Skip to main content

Assessing bed net damage: comparisons of three measurement methods for estimating the size, shape, and distribution of holes on bed nets

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Assessing bed net damage: comparisons of three measurement methods for estimating the size, shape, and distribution of holes on bed nets
Published in
Malaria Journal, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-2049-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jodi L. Vanden Eng, Don P. Mathanga, Keren Landman, Dyson Mwandama, Anna A. Minta, Monica Shah, James Sutcliffe, Joseph Chisaka, Kim A. Lindblade, Laura Steinhardt

Abstract

Measuring the physical condition of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) under field conditions is of great importance for malaria control programmes to guide decisions on how frequently to replace LLINs. Current guidelines by the World Health Organization Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES) propose a proportionate hole index (pHI) for assessing LLIN condition by counting the number of holes the size of a thumb, fist, head, and larger than a head. However, this method does not account for irregular hole shapes or exact hole sizes which could result in inaccurate decisions about when to replace LLINs. LLINs were collected during a 2013 health facility-based malaria case control study in Machinga District, Malawi. To evaluate the accuracy of the pHI, the physical condition of 277 LLINs was estimated by the WHOPES method and then compared with two more thorough measurement methods: image analysis of digital photographs of each LLIN side; and for 10 nets, ruler measurements of the length, width, and location of each hole. Total hole counts and areas per net were estimated by each method, and detailed results of hole shapes and composite pictures of hole locations were generated using image analysis. The WHOPES method and image analysis resulted in similar estimates of total hole counts, each with a median of 10 (inter-quartile range (IQR) 4-24 and 4-23, respectively; p = 0.004); however, estimated hole areas were significantly larger using the WHOPES method (median 162 cm(2), IQR 28-793) than image analysis (median 13 cm(2), IQR 3-101; p < 0.0001). The WHOPES method classified fewer LLINs in 'good condition' compared to image analysis (42% vs 74%). The ruler method detected significantly more holes than image analysis did (p = 0.002) in 10 LLINs; however, total hole area was not significantly different (p = 0.16). Most holes were not circular but roughly 2-5 times longer in one direction. The lower quarter of LLIN sides was found to have the most holes. The WHOPES method overestimated total hole area, likely because holes are elongated rather than circular, suggesting further adjustments to the pHI formula may be warranted when considering LLIN replacement strategies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 23%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Other 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,411,293
of 23,925,854 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,215
of 5,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,841
of 327,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#61
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,925,854 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,755 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 327,445 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.