↓ Skip to main content

Can the collection of expired long-lasting insecticidal nets reduce their coverage and use? Sociocultural aspects related to LLIN life cycle management and use in four districts in Madagascar

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 (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Can the collection of expired long-lasting insecticidal nets reduce their coverage and use? Sociocultural aspects related to LLIN life cycle management and use in four districts in Madagascar
Published in
Malaria Journal, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-2053-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ambinina Ramanantsoa, Marta Wilson-Barthes, Rindra Rahenintsoa, Sarah Hoibak, Harilala Ranaivoharimina, Martha Delphine Rahelimalala, Avotiana Rakotomanga, Alyssa Finlay, Joan Muela Ribera, Koen Peeters Grietens

Abstract

There is growing awareness of the likely impact increased numbers of LLINs will have on the environment, if not disposed of or recycled appropriately. As part of a World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) pilot study to assess environmentally-sound and cost-effective LLIN recycling strategies, the USAID-Deliver Project collected 22,559 used bed nets in Madagascar. A social science study was conducted to provide data on socio-cultural factors related to collection and replacement of LLINs, including impact on primary and other net uses. Ethnographic exploratory research was carried out following the pilot USAID-Deliver net collection and recycling campaign in Betioky, Tsihombe, Fenerive Est and Ambanja districts of Madagascar, triangulating participant observation, interviewing and group discussions. Sampling was theoretical and data analysis was a continuous and iterative process concurrent to data collection. Final analysis was conducted using NVivo10. The following themes emerged as contributing to the success of collecting expired LLINs in the community for recycling purposes: (i) net adequacy and preference: characteristic differences between collected and newly distributed nets lead to communities' reticence to relinquish old nets before confirming new nets were appropriate for intended use. Where newly distributed nets failed to meet local requirements, this was expected to increase alternative uses and decrease household turn over. (ii) Net collection strategies: the net collection campaign brought net use out of the private sphere and into the public arena. Net owners reported feeling ashamed when presenting damaged nets in public for collection, leading to reduced net relinquishment. (iii) Net lifecycle: communities perceived nets as being individually owned and economic value was attributed both to good-condition nets for sleeping and to worn nets for alternative/secondary purposes. Collecting nets at the stage of waste rather than at their prescribed end of life was locally acceptable. The collection of LLINs for recycling/disposal can lead to lower coverage under certain conditions. Collecting used LLINs may be appropriate under the following conditions: (i) nets are collected at the stage of waste; (ii) new nets are in line with community preferences; and (iii) collection strategies have been agreed upon within the community prior to replacement activities. Any collection/recycling of old LLINs should be based on in-depth understanding of the local context and include participatory processes to prevent reduced coverage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 27 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 30 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,219,568
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,302
of 5,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,335
of 324,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#92
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,598 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 324,392 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 51% 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 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.