Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29149892›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2017

Monitoring of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) coverage versus utilization: a community-based survey in malaria endemic villages of Central India.

Kamaraju Raghavendra, Mehul Kumar Chourasia, Dipak Kumar Swain, Rajendra M Bhatt, Sreehari Uragayala, G D P Dutta, Immo Kleinschmidt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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
  19. Sleeping space matters: LLINs usage in Ghana.Pathogens and global health · 2020
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kamaraju RaghavendraNational Institute of Malaria Research (ICMR), Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi, 110077, India. kamarajur2000@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4098-7095
Mehul Kumar ChourasiaNational Institute of Malaria Research (ICMR) IIR-WHO Project, Field Unit, Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, India.
Dipak Kumar SwainNational Institute of Malaria Research (ICMR) IIR-WHO Project, Field Unit, Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, India.
Rajendra M BhattNational Institute of Malaria Research (ICMR), Field Unit, Lalpur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India.
Sreehari UragayalaNational Institute of Malaria Research (ICMR), Field Unit, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
G D P DuttaNational Institute of Malaria Research (ICMR), Field Unit, Lalpur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India.
Immo KleinschmidtDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
National Institute of Malaria Research · INLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation OPP 1062754Medical Research Council MR/K012126/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the known effectiveness of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) in providing protection against malaria, high level of ownership and use are very difficult to achieve and maintain. Nearly 40,000 LLINs were distributed in 2014 as an intervention tool against malaria transmission in 80 villages of Keshkal sub-district in Chhattisgarh, India. This study assessed LLIN coverage, access, utilization pattern, and key determinants for the net use 1 year after mass distribution.

methodsIn 2015, a cross-sectional household survey was carried out in 80 study clusters (whole village or part of village). From each cluster, 40 households were randomly selected and interviewed using a structured questionnaire adapted from the malaria indicator survey of Roll Back Malaria guidelines. Information on demographic characteristics, LLIN ownership, and its use on the night before the survey, and physical condition of LLINs were recorded.

results2970 households were interviewed with a total of 15,003 individuals present in the households during the night before the survey. Nearly 98% of households had at least one LLIN and 59.4% of the surveyed population reportedly used an LLIN the previous night. LLIN use varied from 41 to 94% between the study clusters. Nearly 89% of the LLINs were found in good physical condition (without holes). However, proportion of household with at least one LLIN per two persons was only 39%.

conclusionUniversal coverage of LLINs was inadequate in the study clusters making it difficult for all household members to use an LLIN. LLIN use varied between clusters and was highest in children under 5 years of age. Health education campaigns and creating awareness about the benefit of sleeping under the LLINs in providing protection against malaria is required not only to high risk groups of pregnant women and children below 5 years of age but all the members of the family to have an epidemiological impact of this intervention at the community level. Relatively high net use despite poor access to LLINs indicates an overall desire to use nets when they are available. The main barrier to increased use of nets is the low coverage at household level.

Indexed as

Insecticide-Treated BednetsMosquito ControlCross-Sectional StudiesFamily CharacteristicsIndiaOwnershipSurveys and QuestionnairesChhattisgarhIndiaLLINs coverageLLINs usesLong-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs)

Identifiers

PMID29149892
PMCPMC5693530
OpenAlexW2769368695

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.