Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26821799›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2016

What drives the consistent use of long-lasting insecticidal nets over time? A multi-method qualitative study in mid-western Uganda.

Clare E Strachan, Anthony Nuwa, Denis Muhangi, Albert P Okui, Michelle E H Helinski, James K Tibenderana

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Clare E StrachanMalaria Consortium Africa Office, Plot 25, Upper Naguru East Rd, P.O. Box 8045, Kampala, Uganda. clarestrachan10@gmail.com.
Anthony NuwaMalaria Consortium Africa Office, Plot 25, Upper Naguru East Rd, P.O. Box 8045, Kampala, Uganda. a.nuwa@malariaconsortium.org.
Denis MuhangiDepartment of Social Work and Social Administration, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda. dmuhangi@chuss.mak.ac.ug.
Albert P OkuiNational Malaria Control Programme, Ministry of Health, Plot 6, Lourdel Rd, P.O. Box 7272, Kampala, Uganda. okuip@yahoo.co.uk.
Michelle E H HelinskiMalaria Consortium Africa Office, Plot 25, Upper Naguru East Rd, P.O. Box 8045, Kampala, Uganda. helinski@edctp.org.
James K TibenderanaMalaria Consortium Africa Office, Plot 25, Upper Naguru East Rd, P.O. Box 8045, Kampala, Uganda. j.tibenderana@malariaconsortium.org.
Malaria Consortium · UGMakerere University · UGMinistry of Health · UGPublic Health England · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe distribution of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) through universal coverage campaigns is a widely adopted approach for the prevention of malaria at scale. While post-distribution surveys play a valuable role in determining cross-sectional levels of LLIN retention and use, as well as frequently cited reasons for non-use, few studies have explored the consistency of LLIN use over time, within the expected lifespan of the net, and the factors which may drive this.

methodsIn this qualitative study, 74 in-depth interviews were conducted with (male) household heads and (female) caregivers of children in LLIN recipient households, as well as community health workers, in Buliisa, Hoima and Kiboga districts in Uganda, 25-29 months following a LLIN mass campaign distribution. A triangulation approach to data analysis was taken, incorporating thematic analysis, most significant change and positive deviance.

resultsThe factors found to be most influential in encouraging long-term LLIN use were positive experience of net use prior to the distribution, and appreciation or awareness of a range of benefits arising from their use, including protection from malaria as well as importantly, other health, lifestyle, social and economic benefits. Social support from within the community was also identified as an important factor in determining continued use of LLINs. Net use appeared to be more consistent amongst settled urban and rural communities, compared with fishing, pastoralist, refugee and immigrant communities.

conclusionsA multitude of interplaying factors encouraged consistent LLIN use in this setting. Whilst the protection of malaria remains a powerful motivator, social and behaviour change (SBC) strategies should also capitalize on the non-malaria benefits of net use that provide a long-term rationale for consistent use. Where supplies are available, SBC campaigns should promote replacement options, emphasizing ongoing net care and replacement as a household responsibility, thus reducing dependence on free distributions. The triangulation approach to qualitative data analysis enabled increased confidence in the validity of findings and an enhanced contextual understanding of the factors promoting consistent net use in mid-western Uganda. The approach should be considered when designing future studies to explore factors driving net retention and use trends.

Indexed as

Cross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInsecticidesInsecticide-Treated BednetsMalariaMaleMosquito ControlMosquito NetsUgandaInsecticides

Identifiers

PMID26821799
PMCPMC4730749
OpenAlexW2288929642

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.