ArticleMalaria journal2024
An evaluation of LLIN physical integrity and population attitudes towards net use, care and handling during the Magude project in southern Mozambique.
Article in Malaria journal, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reduced bioefficacy of used LLINs against natural populations of Anopheles gambiae sensu lato in the centre and east regions of Cameroon.Parasites & vectors · 2026Article
- Household washing agents and insecticide-treated net bioefficacy: evidence from a rapid review and laboratory evaluation.MalariaWorld journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Magude Project assessed the feasibility of eliminating malaria in Magude district, a low transmission setting in southern Mozambique, using a package of interventions, including long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs). As the efficacy of LLINs depends in part on their physical integrity, this metric was quantified for Olyset® Nets post mass-distribution, in addition to net use, care and handling practices and other risk factors associated with net physical integrity.
methodsNets were collected during a cross-sectional net evaluation, nine months after the Magude project commenced, which was 2 years after the nets were distributed by the National Malaria Control Programme (NMCP). The physical integrity of the nets was assessed by counting and sizing the holes at different positions on each net. A structured questionnaire was administered to assess how the selected net was used and treated (care, wash and repair). Net bio-efficacy was assessed following the standard World Health Organization (WHO) cone bioassay procedures.
resultsOut of the 170 Olyset® Nets included in the analysis, 63.5% had been used the night before. The main reason for not using a net was the notion that there were no mosquitoes present. The average number of people using each net was 1.79. Two thirds of the nets had only been washed once or twice since distribution. Most nets (80.9%) were holed and 18% were torn, but none of the risk factors were significantly associated with net integrity, except for presence of mice in the household. Less than half of the participants noticed holes in holed nets, and of those only 38.6% attempted to repair those. None of the six nets that were tested for bio-efficacy passed the WHO threshold of 80% mosquito mortality.
conclusionOverall the majority of Olyset® Nets were in serviceable condition two years post-distribution, but their insecticidal effect may have been lost. This study-together with previous evidence on suboptimal access to and use of LLINs in Magude district-highlights that LLINs as an intervention could have been optimized during the Magude project to achieve maximum intervention impact.
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.