Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26395330›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2015

Impact of a behaviour change communication programme on net durability in eastern Uganda.

Michelle H Helinski, Geoffrey Namara, Hannah Koenker, Albert Kilian, Gabrielle Hunter, Angela Acosta, Leah Scandurra, Richmond Ato Selby, Kenneth Mulondo, Megan Fotheringham and 1 more

Abstract readClinical Study
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Durability study of VeeralinParasites & vectors · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

11 authors.

Michelle H HelinskiMalaria Consortium, Kampala, Uganda. m.helinski@malariaconsortium.org.
Geoffrey NamaraMalaria Consortium, Kampala, Uganda. g.namara@malariaconsortium.org.
Hannah KoenkerJohns Hopkins University Center for Communication Programs, Baltimore, MD, USA. hkoenker@jhu.edu.
Albert KilianTropical Health LLP, Montagut, Spain. albert@trophealth.com.
Gabrielle HunterJohns Hopkins University Center for Communication Programs, Baltimore, MD, USA. gabrielle.hunter@jhu.edu.
Angela AcostaJohns Hopkins University Center for Communication Programs, Baltimore, MD, USA. aacosta4@jhu.edu.
Leah ScandurraJohns Hopkins University Center for Communication Programs, Baltimore, MD, USA. leahscandurra@gmail.com.
Richmond Ato SelbyMalaria Consortium, Kampala, Uganda. atoselby@gmail.com.
Kenneth MulondoJohns Hopkins University Center for Communication Programs, Kampala, Uganda. kmulondo@hotmail.com.
Megan FotheringhamUnited States Agency for International Development, Washington DC, USA. mfotheringham@usaid.gov.
Matthew LynchJohns Hopkins University Center for Communication Programs, Baltimore, MD, USA. mlynch@jhu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe importance of net durability and the average useful life of a net is increasingly recognized as one of the critical factors that determine how often nets need to be replaced. A study to assess the effect of a net care and repair behaviour change communication (BCC) programme on net durability was conducted in one district in Eastern Uganda with a district in a neighbouring region serving as a comparison. Both districts had received LLINs in September of 2012.

methodsThe intervention was comprised of radio programmes, school and community events. Two-stage cluster sampling household surveys to assess net condition, exposure to BCC messages, and attitudes towards net care and repair were conducted in both districts at baseline (2-3 months post net distribution) and endline (20-21 months post distribution). Net condition was assessed using the proportionate hole index, with nets being classified as either serviceable or too torn.

resultsThe intervention led to an additional 31.2 % increased exposure to net care and repair messages in the intervention district. Respondents in the intervention district had a more positive attitude towards net care and repair (32 % of respondents were classified as having a very positive attitude compared to 10 % in the comparison district), which was positively associated with the number of channels through which messages had been received (P < 0.001). Nets belonging to respondents with a very positive attitude were more often categorized as serviceable (80.2 %) compared to respondents with a poor/average attitude (66.4 %; odds ratio: 2.05, P = 0.028); however, this was only observed for the net brand with the greater physical integrity. Additionally, socio-economic status was a significant predictor of net condition. Although nets in the intervention district had significantly more repairs done per net, the act of repairing alone did not improve net condition.

conclusionsIn conclusion, the evaluation showed that the BCC programme resulted in improved knowledge and attitudes towards care and repair, which impacted positively on net condition. Repairs alone were not sufficient to improve net condition. Additional research on which care behaviours and attitudes are most associated with improved net condition would help BCC planners hone their campaigns.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthInsecticide-Treated BednetsAdolescentAdultBehavior TherapyDisease Transmission, InfectiousFemaleHealth EducationHumansMalariaMaleNigeriaTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26395330
PMCPMC4580403

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.