ArticleMalaria journal2026
Factors influencing the utilisation of malaria preventive services during pregnancy in Ile Ife, Nigeria: a mixed method approach.
Article in Malaria journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionMalaria poses considerable risk to pregnant women and their unborn babies. Despite the known effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy using sulfadoxine pyrimethamine(IPTp-SP) and long-lasting insecticide nets (LLINs), their use is hindered by several challenges. This study, therefore, assessed factors associated with utilisation of malaria preventive services (MPS) among pregnant women attending primary healthcare centres in Ile-Ife, Nigeria, using a mixed-method approach.
methodsThis was a mixed-method cross-sectional study design conducted among 200 pregnant women in ten selected healthcare facilities across two Local Government Areas (LGAs) of Ile Ife, Nigeria. While the quantitative data was collected from pregnant women using a semi-structured adapted questionnaire, qualitative data was collected from health workers and pregnant women using key informant interviews (KIIs) and focused group discussions (FGDs), respectively. Quantitative data was analysed using SPSS version 25.0, with logistic regression used to determine the factors influencing utilisation of LLINs and IPTp-SP. Thematic analysis of qualitative data was conducted using ATLAS.ti.
resultsLess than half (34%) of the respondents had good knowledge of malaria preventive services (MPS). While 62.5% of the respondents owned LLINs, only 47.5% reported current utilisation. Utilisation of at least one dose of IPTp-SP was at 50.8% and 7% for three or more doses. The multivariable analysis showed a statistically significant association between IPTp-SP uptake and occupation, good knowledge of malaria preventive services and gravidity. Factors that influenced utilisation of MPS include out-of-stock commodities, lack of money, late and irregular ANC attendance due to insufficient funds for transportation, the distance to healthcare facilities, and pregnant women's preference for visiting mission houses (faith-based homes where spiritual and maternity services are provided) over attending antenatal care (ANC), and insufficient training of healthcare providers.
conclusionsModalities to maintain constant availability of malaria preventive commodities at ANC clinics should be put in place. In addition to the conventional awareness programmes, optimal utilisation of MPS can be achieved through the integration of unconventional healthcare providers such as faith-based and traditional birth attendants into malaria in pregnancy preventive initiatives. Also, educational interventions and continuous health workers training are crucial.
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.