↓ 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 (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
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
Authors

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

Abstract

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

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 23%
Student > Master 14 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Librarian 4 5%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 24 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 11%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Unspecified 3 4%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 29 35%

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
#4,061,560
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#986
of 5,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,712
of 331,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#27
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,599 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 done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 331,156 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 75% 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 80% of its contemporaries.