Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25276574›Full record

ArticleGlobal health, science and practice2014

Are pregnant women prioritized for bed nets? An assessment using survey data from 10 African countries.

Emily Ricotta, Hannah Koenker, Albert Kilian, Matthew Lynch

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Global health, science and practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Emily RicottaJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Communication Programs , Baltimore, MD , USA.
Hannah KoenkerJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Communication Programs , Baltimore, MD , USA.
Albert KilianTropical Health LLP, Montagut , Girona , Spain.
Matthew LynchJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Communication Programs , Baltimore, MD , USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USMontagu Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMalaria in pregnancy is a major public health concern, contributing to roughly 11% of neonatal deaths and to 25% of all maternal deaths in some parts of the world. The World Health Organization has recommended priority interventions for malaria during pregnancy, including use of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs), but net distribution has shifted recently to a universal coverage paradigm rather than one targeting vulnerable populations.

methodsTo determine whether and to what extent pregnant women are prioritized within the household for ITN use, we assessed national survey data from 2009-2013 in 10 African countries. Proportion of pregnant women who slept under an ITN the previous night and 95% confidence intervals were calculated and compared between countries. Within-country logistic regression examined whether pregnancy was significantly associated with ITN use the previous night compared with other risk groups, and the predicted probability of net use for each risk group was calculated holding other covariates constant.

resultsA median 58% of households reported owning at least 1 ITN. On average, across all 10 countries, 35% of pregnant women in households with at least 1 ITN used a net. Households with universal coverage (at least 1 ITN per 2 people) had higher levels of net use among all family members; for example, 79% of pregnant women, on average, used a net in such households. In all countries, the predicted probability of ITN use by pregnant women was significantly higher than the probability of net use by most other household members except non-pregnant women of reproductive age.

conclusionThese findings suggest that both pregnant women and non-pregnant women of reproductive age are being prioritized within the household for net use. However, behavior change communication strategies are needed to achieve ITN use goals for pregnant women.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesFamily CharacteristicsPregnant PeopleAdolescentAdultAfricaChildChild, PreschoolData CollectionFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInfantInsecticidesInsecticide-Treated BednetsLogistic ModelsInsecticides

Identifiers

PMID25276574
PMCPMC4168616
OpenAlexW2151154810

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.