Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27267913›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2016

Experiences of households using integrated malaria prevention in two rural communities in Wakiso district, Uganda: a qualitative study.

David Musoke, George Karani, Rawlance Ndejjo, Peter Okui, Miph Boses Musoke

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 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

David MusokeDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda. dmusoke@musph.ac.ug.
George KaraniCardiff School of Health Sciences, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Rawlance NdejjoDepartment of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
Peter OkuiNational Malaria Control Programme, Ministry of Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Miph Boses MusokeSchool of Sciences, Nkumba University, Entebbe, Uganda.
Makerere University · UGCardiff Metropolitan University · GBMinistry of Health · UGNkumba University · UG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe integrated approach to malaria prevention which advocates use of several methods in a holistic manner is being explored to complement existing strategies. A pilot project that promoted integrated malaria prevention established 40 demonstration households using the approach. As part of impact evaluation of the project 2 years after implementation, the experiences of these households using integrated malaria prevention were assessed.

methodsA qualitative cross-sectional survey was carried out in Wakiso district, Uganda which involved 40 in-depth interviews among households implementing integrated malaria prevention. The study assessed practices on malaria prevention, benefits and challenges of using integrated malaria prevention, preference of malaria prevention methods, and impact of the demonstration households on the community. Thematic analysis was employed using Atlas ti software.

resultsThe households continued to use many of the malaria prevention methods in the integrated approach including sleeping under long-lasting insecticidal nets, screening in windows and ventilators, removing mosquito breeding sites, and closing of doors early in the evenings. The major benefits reported from using integrated malaria prevention were reduction in mosquito populations in their houses and less occurrence of malaria particularly among children. Although several community members learnt about and admired various malaria prevention methods from the demonstration households especially screening in windows and ventilators, the majority could not afford to implement some of them due to lack of resources. The main challenge established in using integrated malaria prevention was the much time required to implement the several methods some of which had to be done regularly such as early closing of windows. In addition, complacency had led to some households not utilizing a number of methods in the integrated approach because of using others.

conclusionUse of the integrated approach to malaria prevention benefited the demonstration households mainly through observed reduction in mosquitoes indoors and malaria occurrence hence could be promoted in other areas. Other studies to quantify the protective effect of integrated malaria prevention particularly regarding malaria prevalence and contribution of each of the methods are required.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchChild, PreschoolCommunicable Disease ControlCross-Sectional StudiesDisease Transmission, InfectiousFamily CharacteristicsFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalariaMalePilot ProjectsPregnancyRural PopulationUgandaIntegrated approachLong-lasting insecticidal netsMalaria preventionMosquito breeding sitesUgandaWindow and ventilator screening

Identifiers

PMID27267913
PMCPMC4897866
OpenAlexW2413697679

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.