| Literature DB >> 27756314 |
Yousif Mohammed Elmosaad1, Magda Elhadi2, Asif Khan3, Elfatih Mohamed Malik4, Ilias Mahmud3,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malaria is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in Sudan. The entire population is at risk of contracting malaria to different levels. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of communication for behavioural impact (COMBI) strategy in enhancing the utilization of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) among mothers of under-five children in rural areas.Entities:
Keywords: Communication for behavioural impact; Long-lasting insecticidal nets; Malaria; Mothers of under-five children; North Sudan and utilization
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27756314 PMCID: PMC5070147 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-016-1551-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents
| Household characteristics | Intervention villages (n = 412) | Comparison villages (n = 349) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Husband’s occupation | |||
| Government employee | 35 (8.5) | 22 (6.3) | 0.125 |
| Business | 30 (7.3) | 34 (9.7) | |
| Farmer | 85 (20.6) | 76 (21.8) | |
| Free job | 262 (63.6) | 217 (62.2) | |
| Education level | |||
| Informal education | 117 (28.4) | 99 (28.4) | 0.529 |
| Primary education | 202 (49.0) | 159 (45.6) | |
| Intermediate | 23 (5.6) | 24 (6.9) | |
| Secondary | 60 (14.6) | 53 (15.2) | |
| University | 10 (2.4) | 14 (4.0) | |
| Monthly income (USD) | 68.8 ± 39.6 | 77.1 ± 41.2 | 0.074 |
| Age of mothers | 29.3 ± 6.7 | 30.3 ± 7.9 | 0.148 |
| Family size | 5.3 ± 2.1 | 5.6 ± 2.2 | 0.071 |
| Number of children <5 years | 1.6 ± 0.7 | 1.7 ± 0.7 | 0.416 |
Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage
Plus-minus values are means ± standard deviations (SD)
Pre and post-intervention knowledge of mothers about malaria
| Variables-knowledge about malaria | Response | Intervention villages (n = 412) | χ2 | p value | Comparison villages (n = 349) | χ2 | p value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre (%) | Post (%) | Pre (%) | Post (%) | ||||||
| Malaria vector | Mosquitoes | 86.9 | 97.3 | 45.9 | p < 0.001 | 88.5 | 89.1 | 13.8 | p > 0.127 |
| Malaria transmissions | Mosquito biting | 78.4 | 95.9 | 59.9 | p < 0.001 | 81.1 | 85.7 | 6.57 | p > 0.127 |
| Symptoms of malaria | Fever | 82.5 | 98.3 | 28.1 | p < 0.001 | 79.9 | 79.1 | 0.390 | p > 0.940 |
| Joint pains | 43.9 | 85.7 | 41.8 | 45.8 | |||||
| Vomiting and diarrhoea | 45.6 | 86.7 | 43.6 | 44.4 | |||||
| All of the above | 11.2 | 75.7 | 12.3 | 15.2 | |||||
| Household malaria prevalence | Yes | 25 | 18 | 101.6 | p < 0.001 | 24.6 | 23.8 | 0.284 | p > 0.0867 |
| Perceived reasons why household members got malaria infection | Never used ITNs | 9.7 | 32.4 | 28.2 | p < 0.001 | 19.8 | 25.3 | 1.54 | p > 0.670 |
| Irregular use of ITNs | 34 | 47.3 | 24.4 | 21.7 | |||||
| Personal protective measures | Repellents | 45.9 | 92 | 9.0 | p < 0.05 | 46.7 | 52.4 | 0.360 | p > 0.985 |
| LLINs | 85 | 92.1 | 20.7 | p < 0.001 | 85.5 | 85.8 | 0.17 | p > 0.991 | |
| Recognizing the types of nets | Ordinary | 29.8 | 4.1 | 340.8 | p < 0.001 | 30.6 | 31 | 0.33 | p > 0.084 |
| Impregnated | 55.8 | 11.6 | 56.5 | 57.8 | |||||
| Both responses | 14.4 | 84.3 | 12.9 | 11.2 | |||||
| Types of impregnation | LLINs | 21 | 22.9 | 8.17 | p < 0.017 | 19.8 | 20.1 | 0.245 | p > 0.885 |
| ITNs | 32 | 20.3 | 30.8 | 33 | |||||
| Both responses | 47 | 56.8 | 49.4 | 46.9 | |||||
Attitudes of mothers towards malaria
| Attitudes of mothers towards malaria | Intervention villages (n = 412) | χ2 | p value | Comparison villages (n = 349) | χ2 | p value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre (%) | Post (%) | Pre (%) | Post (%) | |||||
| Malaria is a preventable disease | 80.6 | 99.3 | 79.55 | p < 0.001 | 81.7 | 83.1 | 0.169 | p > 0.91 |
| Malaria is a serious disease | 75.2 | 98.8 | 101.5 | p < 0.001 | 75.1 | 79.7 | 2.12 | p > 0.34 |
| Damaged LLINs also protect from malaria | 32.5 | 12.4 | 48.01 | p < 0.001 | 33.5 | 29.8 | 1.12 | p < 0.16 |
| LLINs can be an effective means against mosquito biting | 55.8 | 92.2 | 136.2 | p < 0.001 | 54.2 | 59.3 | 1.89 | p < 0.097 |
| Mothers encourage family members to use LLINs | 52.7 | 93.7 | 176.6 | p < 0.001 | 52.7 | 56.2 | 0.832 | p < 0.362 |
| LLINs is one of the preventive measures against malaria | 77.7 | 96.1 | 62.36 | p < 0.001 | 87.8 | 79.9 | 0.362 | p < 0.830 |
Fig. 1Utilization of LLINs amongst mothers of under-five children
Variables associated with LLINs utilization in intervention villages
| Variable (n = 412) | LLINs utilization—regular users | χ2 | OR (95 % CI) | p value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||||
| Knowledge status | Don’t have sufficient knowledge | 4 | 1.0 | 5 | 1.2 | 9.47 | 3.4 (1.82–6.34) | 0.010 |
| Have sufficient knowledge | 337 | 81.8 | 66 | 16.0 | ||||
| Educational level | Informal education | 77 | 18.7 | 42 | 10.2 | 38.3 | 3.6 (2.4–5.4) | 0.001 |
| Formal education | 264 | 64.1 | 29 | 7.0 | ||||
| Occupation status | Government employee | 33 | 8.0 | 2 | 0.5 | 3.56 | 3.7 (0.87–15.8) | 0.039 |
| Private employee | 308 | 74.8 | 69 | 16.7 | ||||
| Monthly income | Below mean (USD 72.5) | 201 | 52.8 | 42 | 11.0 | 0.145 | 1.1 (0.65–1.90) | 0.401 |
| Above mean | 112 | 29.4 | 26 | 6.8 | ||||
| Family size | Below mean (5.35) | 132 | 32.2 | 31 | 7.6 | 2.04 | 0.82 (0.49–1.38) | 0.360 |
| Above mean | 207 | 50.5 | 40 | 9.8 | ||||
| Number of children <5 years | 1–2 | 303 | 73.9 | 69 | 16.8 | 4.25 | 3.5 (0.89–13.8) | 0.024 |
| >3 | 36 | 8.8 | 2 | 0.5 | ||||
Maximum score for the ‘knowledge’ variable was 38 (one point for each right answer). A knowledge score of 20 or above was considered as sufficient knowledge
Multivariate analysis of utilization of LLINs in intervention and comparison villages following COMBI
| LLIN Usage | Coef. | Std. Err. | t | p > t | 95 % Confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Groups | ||||||
| Comparison | 0.00 | |||||
| Intervention | 0.59 | 0.03 | 19.49 | 0.00 | 0.53 | 0.65 |
| Education | ||||||
| Informal | 0.00 | |||||
| Formal | 0.16 | 0.03 | 4.69 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.23 |
| Occupation | ||||||
| Government employee | 0.00 | |||||
| Business | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.89 | −0.13 | 0.15 |
| Farmer | −0.01 | 0.06 | −0.15 | 0.88 | −0.14 | 0.12 |
| Free job | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.25 | 0.80 | −0.10 | 0.13 |
| Household monthly income | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.95 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Household population | −0.01 | 0.01 | −1.01 | 0.31 | −0.02 | 0.01 |
| Number of children <5 years | 0.04 | 0.02 | 1.8 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.09 |
| Constant | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.93 | 0.35 | −0.09 | 0.24 |
Pre- and post-intervention levels of overall knowledge, attitude and practice of mothers about malaria
| KAP | Variables | Intervention villages (N = 412) | Df | χ2 | η2 | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre (%) | Post (%) | ||||||
| Overall knowledge about malaria | Good knowledge | 3.8 | 34.2 | 2 | 354.7 | 0.64 | p < 0.001 |
| Practice level of prevention measures | Good practice | 0.8 | 33.6 | 2 | 52.3 | 0.79 | p < 0.001 |
| Attitude level of mothers* | Negative attitude | 24.8 | 0.7 | 1 | 106.97 | 0. 36 | p < 0.001 |
| Positive attitude | 75.2 | 99.3 | |||||
Poor knowledge (1–12), Moderate knowledge (13–24) and Good knowledge (>25). Maximum score for the ‘knowledge’ variable was 38 (one point for each right answer)
An overall score of practice of malaria prevention was calculated by adding up the score for each of all thirteen questions and the maximum total score was 18 [Poor practice (1–6), Fair practice (7–12) and Good practice (13–18)]
To assess the attitude of mothers of under-five children towards malaria. The response to the questions was in the form of Yes or No and a positive attitude with a response “yes” was given two points and a negative attitude with a response “No” was not given any point
There was no significant change in level of knowledge, practice and attitude among mothers of under-five children living in comparison villages at the time of post-intervention (p > 0.05)
* 95 % Confidence interval: [OR = 2.25, CI (2.05–2.46)]
Malaria parasite prevalence using RDT among children under 5 years of age who were tested before and after intervention
| Tests | n (%) positive for intervention villagesa | n (%) positive for comparison villagesb | χ2 | OR (95 % CI) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-test | 19 (4.7) | 17 (4.9) | 0.27 | 1.06 (0.54–2.07) | 0.866 |
| Post-test | 9 (2.3) | 16 (4.8) | 3.52 | 1.4 (1.05–1.9) | 0.047 |
an = 398; 3.4 % children refused blood test
bn = 334; 4.2 % children refused blood test