↓ Skip to main content

Mosquito net coverage in years between mass distributions: a case study of Tanzania, 2013

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, March 2018
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 (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

11 tweeters


55 Dimensions

Readers on

94 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.
Mosquito net coverage in years between mass distributions: a case study of Tanzania, 2013
Published in
Malaria Journal, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-018-2247-z
Pubmed ID

Zawadi M. Mboma, Hans J. Overgaard, Sarah Moore, John Bradley, Jason Moore, Dennis J. Massue, Karen Kramer, Jo Lines, Lena M. Lorenz


The Government of Tanzania is the main source of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) for its population. Mosquito nets (treated and untreated) are also available in the commercial market. To sustain investments and health gains in the fight against malaria, it is important for the National Malaria Control Programme to monitor LLIN coverage especially in the years between mass distributions and to understand what households do if their free nets are deemed unusable. The aim of this paper was to assess standard LLIN indicators by wealth status in Tanzania in 2013, 2 years after the last mass campaign in 2011, and extend the analysis to untreated nets (UTNs) to investigate how households adapt when nets are not continuously distributed. Between October-December 2013, a household survey was conducted in 3398 households in eight districts in Tanzania. Using the Roll Back Malaria indicators, the study analysed: (1) household net ownership; (2) access to nets; (3) population net use and (4) net use:access ratio. Outcomes were calculated for LLINs and UTNs. Results were analysed by socio-economic quintiles and by district. Only three of the eight districts had household LLIN ownership of more than 80%. In 2013, less than a quarter of the households had one LLIN for every two people and only half of the population had access to an LLIN. Only the wealthier quintiles increased their net ownership and access to levels above 80% through the addition of UTNs. Overall net use of the population was low (LLINs: 32.8%; UTNs: 9.5%) and net use:access ratio was below target level (LLINs: 0.66; UTN: 0.50). Both measures varied significantly by district. Two years after the last mass campaign, the percentage of households or population with access to LLINs was low. These findings indicate the average rate at which households in Tanzania lose their nets is higher than the rate at which they acquire new nets. The wealthiest households topped up their household net ownership with UTNs. Efforts to make LLINs available through commercial markets should be promoted, so those who can afford to buy nets purchase LLINs rather than UTNs. Net use was low around 40% and mostly explained by lack of access to nets. However, the use:access ratio was poor in Mbozi and Kahama districts warranting further investigations to understand other barriers to net use.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 19%
Student > Master 18 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 5%
Librarian 3 3%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 29 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 33 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 13 March 2018.
All research outputs
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 335,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 well, scoring higher than 80% 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 335,158 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.