↓ Skip to main content

A qualitative study of use of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) for intended and unintended purposes in Adami Tullu, East Shewa Zone, Ethiopia

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
A qualitative study of use of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) for intended and unintended purposes in Adami Tullu, East Shewa Zone, Ethiopia
Published in
Malaria Journal, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-018-2209-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zerihun Doda, Tarekegn Solomon, Eskindir Loha, Taye Gari, Bernt Lindtjørn

Abstract

Malaria poses a significant public health threat globally, across Africa and in Ethiopia. The use of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) is currently a proven prevention mechanism. Evidence is building on what happens to LLINs following mass distribution campaigns, with mixed results from different studies, some reporting very low use for intended purposes, others an encouraging level of using for intended purposes. In Ethiopia, between 2005 and 2015, about 64 million LLINs were distributed through periodic mass campaigns with the aims to achieve 100% coverage and 80% utilization. However, studies from rural Ethiopia showed variable LLINs coverage and utilization rate. The MalTrial Project, a collaborative venture between Hawassa University, Ethiopia and NROAID, Norway, has started a trial project in 2014 in Adami Tullu District of central Ethiopia. Quantitative surveys have established evidence on LLINs ownership and utilization, but the behavioural, sociocultural and socioeconomic dynamics of why LLINs' use for intended purposes is low or why they are employed for other purposes remained elusive. The present qualitative study, building on the quantitative findings and framework, therefore, attempted to fill gaps in these areas using qualitative methods in selected localities of the district. The study employed 7 focus groups, 16 individual interviews and observation to undertake data collection in January 2017. The data were analysed using NVivo Version 11 (QSR International) to transcribe, code and identify themes using thematic analysis approach. The study found out that certain households were more likely to use nets for intended needs in proper ways; a range of factors, notably socio-cultural and poverty, highly influence users' ideas about the right ways and decisions to use and care for the nets; knowledge gaps and wrong perception exist regarding the purposes and life cycle of the nets; LLINs are employed for repurposed uses once they are considered non-viable, old, or lose their physical integrity; existence of misuse was acknowledged and understood as wrong; and values about gender roles further shape uses, misuses and repurposed use of the nets. Behavioural, socio-cultural, economic and ecological conditions coupled with deficiencies in perceived bed net design and distribution policies; weak education, communication and social support structures were important in understanding and accounting for why a low level of intended use and a rampant misuse and repurposed use in Adami Tullu community of Ethiopia. A major nexus to address in order to improve intended use of LLINs lies, first and foremost, in economic poverty and socio-cultural factors that underlie much of the misuse and repurposed use of the nets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 19%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 3%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 45 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 4%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 47 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,353,061
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#487
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,723
of 445,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#10
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 445,351 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.