ArticleMalaria journal2016
Development and validation of a rapid assessment tool for malaria prevention.
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 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The prevalence and density of asymptomatic Plasmodium falciparum infections among children and adults in three communities of western Kenya.Malaria journal · 2021Article
- Estimating malaria chemoprevention and vector control coverage using program and campaign data: A scoping review of current practices and opportunities.Journal of global health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInsecticide-treated bed nets (ITN) have been shown to be efficacious in reducing malaria morbidity and mortality in many regions. Unfortunately in some areas, malaria has persisted despite the scale up of ITNs. Recent reports indicate that human behaviour and mosquito behaviour are potential threats to the efficacy of ITNs. However, these concerns are likely highly heterogeneous even at very small scales. This study aimed at developing, testing and validating a rapid assessment tool to collect actionable information at local levels for a quick evaluation of potential barriers to malaria prevention.
methodsThe study was conducted at the Webuye Health and Demographic Surveillance Site in Bungoma East Sub-County, Kenya. Based on the findings from the case-control study, 12 primary surveillance components that encompass the major impediments to successful prevention were identified and used to develop a rapid assessment tool. Twenty community health volunteers were trained to identify patients with laboratory-confirmed malaria in six peripheral health facilities located within six sub locations and subsequently followed them up to their homes to conduct a rapid assessment. Sampling and analysis of the results of the survey are based on Lot Quality Assurance.
resultsThe tool was able to detect local heterogeneity in bed net coverage, bed net use and larval site abundance in the six health facility catchment areas. Nearly all the catchment areas met the action threshold for incomplete household coverage (i.e. not all household members not using a net the previous night) except the peri-urban area. Although the threshold for nets not in good condition was set very high (≥50%), only two catchment areas failed to meet the action threshold. On the indicator for "Net not used every day last week", half of the areas failed, while for net ownership, only two areas met the action threshold.
conclusionThe rapid assessment tool was able to detect marked heterogeneity in key indicators for malaria prevention between patients attending health facilities, and can distinguish between priority areas for intervention. There is need to validate it for use in other contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.