Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30683091›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2019

Community knowledge and acceptance of indoor residual spraying for malaria prevention in Mozambique: a qualitative study.

Amílcar Magaço, Carlos Botão, Pedroso Nhassengo, Mohomede Saide, Arminda Ubisse, Sérgio Chicumbe, Rose Zulliger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Acceptability of Integrated Vector Management ofTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2026
    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. Article
  20. Review
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.

Amílcar MagaçoSistemas de Saúde, Instituto Nacional de Saúde, Ministério da Saúde, Moçambique, Maputo, Mozambique. magacoamilcar6@gmail.com.
Carlos BotãoSistemas de Saúde, Instituto Nacional de Saúde, Ministério da Saúde, Moçambique, Maputo, Mozambique.
Pedroso NhassengoSistemas de Saúde, Instituto Nacional de Saúde, Ministério da Saúde, Moçambique, Maputo, Mozambique.
Mohomede SaideSistemas de Saúde, Instituto Nacional de Saúde, Ministério da Saúde, Moçambique, Maputo, Mozambique.
Arminda UbisseSistemas de Saúde, Instituto Nacional de Saúde, Ministério da Saúde, Moçambique, Maputo, Mozambique.
Sérgio ChicumbeSistemas de Saúde, Instituto Nacional de Saúde, Ministério da Saúde, Moçambique, Maputo, Mozambique.
Rose ZulligerUS President's Malaria Initiative and Malaria Branch, Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Maputo, Mozambique.

Funding

CGH CDC HHS U2R GH000046President's Malaria Initiative U2RGH000046
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMalaria control remains a leading health challenge in Mozambique. Indoor residual spraying (IRS) is an effective strategy to control malaria transmission, but there are often barriers to reaching the coverage necessary for attaining maximum community protective effect of IRS. Mozambique recorded a high number of household refusals during the 2016 IRS campaign. This study sought to evaluate household and community factors related to the acceptability of IRS to inform strategies for future campaigns in Mozambique and the region.

methodsA cross-sectional, qualitative study was conducted in eight urban and rural communities in two high malaria burden provinces in Mozambique. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with community members, leaders, sprayers, and representatives of district health directorates; focus group discussions with community members who accepted and who refused IRS during the 2016 campaign; systematic field observations; and informal conversations. Data were systematically coded and analysed using NVIVO-11

resultsA total of 61 interviews and 12 discussions were conducted. Community participants predominantly described IRS as safe, but many felt that it had limited efficacy. The main factors that participants mentioned as having influenced their IRS acceptance or refusal were: understanding of IRS; community leader level of support; characteristics of IRS programmatic implementation; environmental, political and historical factors. Specifically, IRS acceptance was higher when there was perceived community solidarity through IRS acceptance, desire to reduce the insect population in homes, trust in government and community satisfaction with past IRS campaign effectiveness. Participants who refused were mainly from urban districts and were more educated. The main barriers to acceptance were associated with selection and performance of spray operators, negative experiences from previous campaigns, political-partisan conflicts, difficulty in removing heavy or numerous household assets, and preference for insecticide-treated nets over IRS.

conclusionsAcceptance of IRS was influenced by diverse operational and contextual factors. As such, future IRS communications in targeted communities should emphasize the importance of high IRS coverage for promoting both familial and community health. Additionally, clear communications and engagement with community leaders during spray operator selection and spray implementation may help reduce barriers to IRS acceptance.

Indexed as

AnophelesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeInsecticidesMosquito ControlAnimalsCommunicable Disease ControlCommunity ParticipationCross-Sectional StudiesFocus GroupsHumansMalariaMozambiquePesticide ResiduesQualitative ResearchInsecticidesPesticide ResiduesAcceptabilityIndoor residual sprayingMalariaMozambique

Identifiers

PMID30683091
PMCPMC6347840

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.