Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21777446›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2011

Investigating preferences for mosquito-control technologies in Mozambique with latent class analysis.

Rachel A Smith, Victoria C Barclay, Jill L Findeis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rachel A SmithDepartment of Communication Arts & Sciences and the Methodology Center, the Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. ras57@psu.edu
Victoria C Barclay
Jill L Findeis

Funding

THE REFINEMENT &APPLICATION OF MEDICAL DECISION MAKING IN PREVENTION SCIENCESP50DA010075 · NIDA · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY-UNIV PARK · PI LANZA, STEPHANIE T · 1996 to 2014
$24.5M
NIDA NIH HHS P50 DA010075NIDA NIH HHS P50-DA010075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is common practice to seek the opinions of future end-users during the development of innovations. Thus, the aim of this study is to investigate latent classes of users in Mozambique based on their preferences for mosquito-control technology attributes and covariates of these classes, as well as to explore which current technologies meet these preferences.

methodsSurveys were administered in five rural villages in Mozambique. The data were analysed with latent class analysis.

resultsThis study showed that users' preferences for malaria technologies varied, and people could be categorized into four latent classes based on shared preferences. The largest class, constituting almost half of the respondents, would not avoid a mosquito-control technology because of its cost, heat, odour, potential to make other health issues worse, ease of keeping clean, or inadequate mosquito control. The other three groups are characterized by the attributes which would make them avoid a technology; these groups are labelled as the bites class, by-products class, and multiple-concerns class. Statistically significant covariates included literacy, self-efficacy, willingness to try new technologies, and perceived seriousness of malaria for the household.

conclusionsTo become widely diffused, best practices suggest that end-users should be included in product development to ensure that preferred attributes or traits are considered. This study demonstrates that end-user preferences can be very different and that one malaria control technology will not satisfy everyone.

Indexed as

AdultAnimalsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMosquito ControlMozambiquePatient Acceptance of Health CareRural PopulationSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID21777446
PMCPMC3152939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.