↓ Skip to main content

Long-lasting insecticidal net source, ownership and use in the context of universal coverage: a household survey in eastern Rwanda

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
200 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 net source, ownership and use in the context of universal coverage: a household survey in eastern Rwanda
Published in
Malaria Journal, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0915-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fredrick Kateera, Chantal M. Ingabire, Emmanuel Hakizimana, Alexis Rulisa, Parfait Karinda, Martin P. Grobusch, Leon Mutesa, Michèle van Vugt, Petra F. Mens

Abstract

Universal long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) coverage (ULC) has reduced malaria morbidity and mortality across Africa. Although information is available on bed net use in specific groups, such as pregnant women and children under 5 years, there is paucity of data on their use among the general population. Bed net source, ownership and determinants of use among individuals from households in an eastern Rwanda community 8 months after a ULC were characterized. Using household-based, interviewer-administered questionnaires and interviewer-direct observations, data on bed net source, ownership and key determinants of net use, including demographics, socio-economic status indicators, house structure characteristics, as well as of bed net quantity, type and integrity, were collected from 1400 randomly selected households. Univariate and mixed effects logistic regression modelling was done to assess for determinants of bed net use. A total of 1410 households and 6598 individuals were included in the study. Overall, the proportion of households with at least one net was 92 % while bed net usage was reported among 72 % of household members. Of the households surveyed, a total ownership of 2768 nets was reported, of which about 96 % were reportedly LLINs received from the ULC. By interviewer-physical observation, 88 % of the nets owned were of the LLIN type with the remaining 12 % did not carry any mark to enable type recognition. The odds of bed net use were significantly lower among males and individuals: from households of low socio-economic status, from households with <two bed nets, from households reporting use of ≥two sleeping spaces, and those reporting to have not slept on a bed. In this study, despite high a bed net coverage, over 25 % of members reported not to have slept under a bed net the night before the survey. Males were particularly less likely to use bed nets even where nets were available. Household socio-economic status, number of bed nets and type and number of sleeping spaces were key determinants of bed net use. To maximize impact of ULC, strategies that target males as well as those that ensure ITN coverage for all, address barriers to feasible and convenient bed net use including covering over all sleeping space types, and provide net hanging supports, are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 199 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 28%
Researcher 26 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Student > Bachelor 16 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 5%
Other 33 17%
Unknown 37 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 14%
Social Sciences 25 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 3%
Other 33 17%
Unknown 43 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 June 2016.
All research outputs
#19,854,550
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#5,309
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,259
of 282,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#132
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 282,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.