↓ 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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 9 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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
#5,582,842
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,392
of 5,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,285
of 327,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#38
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 327,865 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 72% 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 69% of its contemporaries.