↓ Skip to main content

Implementation strategies to increase access and demand of long-lasting insecticidal nets: a before-and-after study and scale-up process in Mozambique

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Implementation strategies to increase access and demand of long-lasting insecticidal nets: a before-and-after study and scale-up process in Mozambique
Published in
Malaria Journal, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-2086-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jorge A. H. Arroz, Chandana Mendis, Liliana Pinto, Baltazar Candrinho, João Pinto, Maria do Rosário O. Martins

Abstract

The universal coverage bed nets campaign is a proven health intervention promoting increased access, ownership, and use of bed nets to reduce malaria burden. This article describes the intervention and implementation strategies that Mozambique carried out recently in order to improve access and increase demand for long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs). A before-and-after study with a control group was used during Stage I of the implementation process. The following strategies were tested in Stage I: (1) use of coupons during household registration; (2) use of stickers to identify the registered households; (3) new LLIN ascription formula (one LLIN for every two people). In Stage II, the following additional strategies were implemented: (4) mapping and micro-planning; (5) training; and (6) supervision. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to compare and establish differences between intervened and control districts in Stage I. Main outcomes were: percentage of LLINs distributed, percentage of target households benefited. In Stage I, 87.8% (302,648) of planned LLINs were distributed in the intervention districts compared to 77.1% (219,613) in the control districts [OR: 2.14 (95% CI 2.11-2.16)]. Stage I results also showed that 80.6% (110,453) of households received at least one LLIN in the intervention districts compared to 72.8% (87,636) in the control districts [OR: 1.56 (95% CI 1.53-1.59)]. In Stage II, 98.4% (3,536,839) of the allocated LLINs were delivered, covering 98.6% (1,353,827) of the registered households. Stage I results achieved better LLINs and household coverage in districts with the newly implemented strategies. The results of stage II were also encouraging. Additional strategies adaptation is required for a wide-country LLIN campaign.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 12 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Unspecified 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 14 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,857,260
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,899
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,680
of 332,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#48
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 332,334 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 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 62% of its contemporaries.