↓ Skip to main content

Long-lasting insecticidal nets in Zambia: a cross-sectional analysis of net integrity and insecticide content

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, June 2015
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 (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Long-lasting insecticidal nets in Zambia: a cross-sectional analysis of net integrity and insecticide content
Published in
Malaria Journal, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0754-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allen S. Craig, Mbanga Muleba, Stephen C. Smith, Cecilia Katebe-Sakala, Gershom Chongwe, Busiku Hamainza, Batuke Walusiku, Megan Tremblay, Maureen Oscadal, Robert Wirtz, Kathrine R. Tan

Abstract

Long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) are a mainstay of malaria prevention in Africa. More LLINs are available now than in any time previously due to increases in funding for malaria control. LLINs are expected to last three to five years before they need to be replaced. Reports of nets lasting less than three years are frequent in Zambia, which, if true, will increase the number of LLINs needed to maintain universal coverage. This study collected nets distributed during mass distribution campaigns. One net was collected from each participating home in 12 districts in 2010 and all nets were examined for holes. One household member was surveyed about net use and care. The study collected 713 polyester nets with a median age of 31 months (range 27-44 months, interquartile (IQR) range: 29-36 months), median number of holes was 17 (IQR: 5-33), and median total hole size was 88.3 sq cm (IQR: 14.5-360.4). The median total number of holes did differ by age of the net, from 27-44 months, but not in a linear fashion. The difference in the number of holes in the newest and oldest nets was not statistically significant. The mean deltamethrin level for all nets was 23 mg/sq m (≥8 mg/sq m is considered effective). There was a larger total hole area in the lower half of the nets (repeat measures ANOVA, F = 228.43, df = 2, p < 0.0001) compared to the upper half and roof of the net. Only 8.7 % of nets had evidence of repairs. At 27 - 30 months, LLINs already had a large total hole surface area that was equivalent to the oldest nets observed. Nets were often tucked under reed mats which may explain the finding that the largest hole area was found in the lower half of the net. Studies need to be conducted prospectively to determine when physical deterioration occurs and why nets are discarded. Re-enforcing the lower half of the sides of LLINs may help decrease holes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Sudan 1 2%
Unknown 60 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 23%
Researcher 12 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Other 4 6%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 11 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 June 2015.
All research outputs
#1,566,807
of 6,890,269 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#714
of 2,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,215
of 215,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#39
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,890,269 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,330 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 215,258 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 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 60% of its contemporaries.