Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25774676›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2015

The effect of single or repeated home visits on the hanging and use of insecticide-treated mosquito nets following a mass distribution campaign--a cluster randomized, controlled trial.

Albert Kilian, Connie Balayo, Mitra Feldman, Hannah Koenker, Kojo Lokko, Ruth A Ashton, Jane Bruce, Matthew Lynch, Marc Boulay

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Albert KilianMalaria Consortium, London, United Kingdom; Tropical Health LLP, Montagut, Spain.
Connie BalayoMalaria Control Program, Ministry of Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Mitra FeldmanMalaria Consortium Uganda, Kampala, Uganda.
Hannah KoenkerJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Communication Programs, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Kojo LokkoJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Communication Programs, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Ruth A AshtonMalaria Consortium Uganda, Kampala, Uganda.
Jane BruceMalaria Consortium, London, United Kingdom.
Matthew LynchJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Communication Programs, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Marc BoulayJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Communication Programs, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Johns Hopkins University · USMalaria Consortium · UGMalaria Consortium · GBMinistry of Health · UG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudy objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of commonly used post-campaign hang-up visits on the hanging and use of campaign nets.

methodsA cluster-randomized trial was carried out in Uganda following an ITN distribution campaign. Five clusters (parishes, consisting of ∼11 villages each) were randomly selected for each of the three study arms with between 7,534 and 9,401 households per arm. Arm 1 received one hang-up visit, while Arm 2 received two visits by volunteers four and seven months after the campaign. Visits consisted of assistance hanging the net and education on net use. The control arm was only exposed to messages during the campaign itself. Three cross-sectional surveys with a two-stage cluster sampling design, representative of the study populations, were carried out to capture the two key outcome variables of net hanging and ITN use. Sample size was calculated to detect at least a 15 percentage-points change in net use, and was 1811 at endline. The analysis used an intention-to-treat approach.

findingsBoth hanging and use of ITN increased during follow-up in a similar way in all three study arms. The proportion of the population using an ITN the previous night was 64.0% (95% CI 60.8, 67.2), for one additional visit, 68.2% (63.8, 72.2) for two visits and 64.0% (59.4, 68.5) for the control. The proportion of households with all campaign nets hanging increased from 55.7% to 72.5% at endline (p<0.0005 for trend), with no difference between study arms. Financial cost per household visited was estimated as USD 2.33 for the first visit and USD 2.24 for the second.

conclusionsBehavior change communication provided during the campaign or through other channels was sufficient to induce high levels of net hanging and use and additional "hang-up" activities were not cost-effective.

Indexed as

House CallsHealth PromotionHumansInsecticide-Treated BednetsMalariaMosquito ControlPersuasive CommunicationSurveys and QuestionnairesUganda

Identifiers

PMID25774676
PMCPMC4361725
OpenAlexW1974670061

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.