| Literature DB >> 23574987 |
Ashley E Garley1, Elizabeth Ivanovich, Erin Eckert, Svetlana Negroustoueva, Yazoume Ye.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent expansion in insecticide-treated net (ITN) distribution strategies range from targeting pregnant women and children under five and distributing ITN at antenatal care and immunization programmes, to providing free distribution campaigns to cover an entire population. These changes in strategy raise issues of disparities, such as equity of access and equality in ITN use among different groups, including females and males. Analysis is needed to assess the effects of gender on uptake of key malaria control interventions. A recent post-universal free ITN distribution campaign survey in Kano State, Nigeria offered an opportunity to look at gender effects on ITN use.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23574987 PMCID: PMC3635971 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-12-119
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Percentage of individuals living in households with ITNs, by gender and background characteristics
| | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | | |
| Wave 1 | 63.8 | 1,169 | 63.3 | 1,175 | 63.6 | 2,344 |
| Wave 2 | 69.6 | 1,173 | 69.1 | 1,085 | 69.4 | 2,258 |
| | | | | | | |
| Urban | 69.5 | 791 | 68.5 | 774 | 69.0 | 1,565 |
| Rural | 65.3 | 1,551 | 64.9 | 1,486 | 65.1 | 3,037 |
| | | | | | | |
| Lowest | 62.3 | 453 | 65.7 | 364 | 64.0 | 817 |
| Second | 70.0 | 466 | 71.4 | 398 | 70.7 | 864 |
| Middle | 69.3 | 452 | 66.2 | 494 | 67.7 | 946 |
| Fourth | 70.6 | 472 | 69.0 | 464 | 69.8 | 936 |
| Highest | 61.7 | 499 | 60.0 | 540 | 60.9 | 1,039 |
ITN use among individuals with access to ITNs, by gender and background characteristics
| | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | |||||||
| | | | | | |||
| Wave 1 | 52.4 | 391 | 46.2 | 344 | 49.3 | 1,490 | |
| Wave 2 | 61.5 | 502 | 51.3 | 385 | 56.6 | 1,566 | |
| | | | | | |||
| Urban | 55.6 | 306 | 43.8 | 232 | 49.8 | 1,080 | |
| Rural | 58.0 | 587 | 51.6 | 497 | 54.9 | 1,084 | |
| | | | | | |||
| Lowest | 57.4 | 162 | 46.4 | 111 | 52.4 | 521 | |
| Second | 53.1 | 173 | 47.2 | 134 | 50.3 | 610 | 0.147 |
| Middle | 59.7 | 187 | 52.6 | 172 | 56.1 | 640 | 0.069 |
| Fourth | 58.0 | 193 | 46.3 | 148 | 52.2 | 653 | |
| Highest | 57.8 | 178 | 50.6 | 164 | 54.1 | 632 | 0.070 |
| | | | | | |||
| Yes | 67.8 | 299 | 70.9 | 246 | 69.2 | 788 | 0.351 |
| No | 53.0 | 594 | 42.1 | 483 | 47.5 | 2268 | |
| | | | | | | ||
| | 62.4 | 303 | 61.9 | 336 | 62.1 | 639 | 0.902 |
| | 49.0 | 498 | 48.0 | 473 | 48.5 | 971 | 0.754 |
| | 58.1 | 270 | 23.4 | 197 | 43.5 | 467 | |
| | 61.7 | 491 | 50.8 | 488 | 56.3 | 979 | |
Bold =Significance assessed at 5% - comparing females and males.
Gender effects on the use of ITNs among individuals who have access to ITNs
| | | ||||
| | | | | ||
| Gender | | | | | |
| | 1,494 | 729 (48.8) | 1 | | |
| | 1,562 | 893 (57.2) | |||
| | | | | ||
| Wealth quintiles | | | | | |
| | 521 | 273 (52.4) | 0.80 (0.61-1.05) | 0.104 | |
| | 610 | 307 (50.3) | 0.82 (0.64-1.06) | 0.128 | |
| | 640 | 359 (56.1) | 1.09 (0.86-1.39) | 0.479 | |
| | 653 | 341 (52.2) | 0.89 (0.70-1.13) | 0.334 | |
| | 632 | 342 (54.1) | 1 | | |
| Waves | | | | | |
| | 1,490 | 735 (49.3) | 1 | | |
| | 1,566 | 887 (56.6) | |||
| Age | | | | | |
| | 639 | 397 (62.1) | |||
| | 971 | 471 (48.5) | 0.88 (0.73-1.06) | 0.169 | |
| | 467 | 203 (43.5) | <0.001 | ||
| | 979 | 551 (56.3) | 1 | | |
| Place of residence | | | | | |
| | 1080 | 538 (49.8) | 1 | | |
| | 1976 | 1,084 (54.9) | 1.15 (0.98-1.35) | 0.098 | |
| Education of head of household | | | | ||
| | 1,880 | 965 (51.3) | 1 | | |
| | 636 | 374 (58.8) | |||
| | 382 | 185 (48.4) | 0.87 (0.68-1.12) | 0.288 | |
| | 115 | 75 (65.2) | |||
| | 43 | | | | |
| Polygamous household | | | | | |
| | Yes | 1,291 | 666 (51.6) | 1 | |
| | No | 1,765 | 956 (54.2) | 0.88 (0.76-1.03) | 0.114 |
| Ratio 1 ITN/2 persons met | | | | ||
| | 2,268 | 1,077 (47.5) | 1 | | |
| 788 | 545 (69.2) | ||||
Model fit: LR chi2(18)=238.45; p value<0.00001; Pseudo R2=0.057; Log likelihood = −1963.54.