ArticleMalaria journal2022
Implementation and acceptance of government-sponsored malaria control interventions in Meghalaya, India.
Article in Malaria journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Malaria risk, treatment-seeking, and prevention in Northeastern India: clinic-based surveillance of persistent transmission.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Hotspot districts of persistentThe Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2025Article
- A multilevel social network approach to studying multiple disease-prevention behaviors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Community and health worker perspectives on malaria in Meghalaya, India: covering the last mile of elimination by 2030.Malaria journal · 2024Article
- Knowledge and Practices of Women Regarding Malaria and Its Prevention: A Community-Based Study in an Area under Malaria Elimination Programme in Iran.Journal of arthropod-borne diseases · 2023Article
- Community and health worker perspectives on malaria in Meghalaya, India: Covering the last mile of elimination by 2030.Research square · 2023Article
- "Climate Change and Health?": Knowledge and Perceptions among Key Stakeholders in Puducherry, India.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Challenge and opportunity for vector control strategies on key mosquito-borne diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- Assessing afebrile malaria and bed-net use in a high-burden region of India: Findings from multiple rounds of mass screening.PloS one · 2023Article
- Contextualizing Public Health Interventions in Eliminating Endemic Diseases: New Lessons From a Review of Sri Lanka's Success in Eliminating Malaria.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIndia has made considerable progress in malaria reduction over the past two decades, with government-sponsored indoor residual spraying (IRS) and insecticide-treated bed net (ITN) or long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLIN) distribution being the main vector-related prevention efforts. Few investigations have used non-participant observational methods to assess malaria control measures while they were being implemented, nor documented people's perceptions and acceptance of IRS or LLINs in India, and none have done so in the northeast region. This study evaluated household (HH)-level operation of IRS and distribution of LLINs by India's National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme (NVBDCP) in 50 villages of Meghalaya state, and documented their acceptance and use.
methodsStudy field teams accompanied the government health system teams during August-October, 2019 and 2020 to observe deployment of LLINs, and record HH-level data on LLIN numbers and use. In addition, NVBDCP spray teams were followed during 2019-2021 to observe IRS preparation and administration. HH members were interviewed to better understand reasons for acceptance or refusal of spraying.
resultsA total of 8386 LLINs were distributed to 2727 HHs in 24 villages from five Primary Health Centres, representing 99.5% of planned coverage. Interviews with 80 HH residents indicated that they appreciated the LLIN dissemination programme, and generally made regular and appropriate use of LLINs, except during overnight travel or when working in agricultural fields. However, HH-level IRS application, which was observed at 632 HHs, did not always follow standard insecticide preparation and safety protocols. Of 1,079 occupied HHs visited by the spray team, 632 (58.6%) refused to allow any spraying. Only 198 (18.4%) HHs agreed to be sprayed, comprising 152 (14.1%) that were only partly sprayed, and 46 (4.3%) that were fully sprayed. Reasons for refusal included: inadequate time to rearrange HH items, young children were present, annoying smell, staining of walls, and threat to bee-keeping or Eri silk moth cultivation.
conclusionsThese findings are among the first in India that independently evaluate people's perceptions and acceptance of ongoing government-sponsored IRS and LLIN programmes for malaria prevention. They represent important insights for achieving India's goal of malaria elimination by 2030.
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.