| Literature DB >> 29642883 |
J Douglas Storey1, Stella O Babalola2, Emily E Ricotta2, Kathleen A Fox2, Michael Toso2, Nan Lewicky2, Hannah Koenker2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs) is crucial to the prevention, control, and elimination of malaria. Using household surveys conducted in 2014-2015 by the Health Communication Capacity Collaborative project in Madagascar, Mali, and Nigeria, we compared a model of psychosocial influence, called Ideation, to examine how malaria-related variables influence individual and household bed net use in each of these countries. Evaluations of non-malaria programs have confirmed the value of the ideational approach, but it is infrequently used to guide malaria interventions. The study objective was to examine how well this model could identify potentially effective malaria prevention approaches in different contexts.Entities:
Keywords: Bed nets; Behavior change; Health communication; Ideation; Insecticide treated nets; Malaria
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29642883 PMCID: PMC5896159 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-5372-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Ideation model of strategic communication and behavior change. Detailed legend: Ideation model of strategic communication and behavior change showing relationships between types of communication, skills and knowledge, environmental context, ideation, behavior change and health outcomes [73]
Results of logistic regression of household members’ net use by selected sociodemographic, ideational, and household variables in Madagascar, Mali, and Nigeria
| Predictor | Madagascar | Mali | Nigeria | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds Ratio | Betaa | Odds Ratio | Betaa | Odds Ratio | Betaa | |
| Age group | ||||||
| Under-5 (RC) | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – |
| 5–17 | 0.411*** | − 0.192 | 0.332*** | − 0.265 | 0.502*** | −0.162 |
| Adult | 0.934 | −0.016 | 0.374*** | −0.242 | 0.448*** | −0.202 |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male (RC) | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – |
| Female | 1.155 | 0.034 | 0.839‡ | −0.044 | 1.044 | 0.011 |
| Age group/Gender Interactions | ||||||
| Under-5 X Male (RC) | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – |
| 5–17 X Female | 0.978 | − 0.004 | 1.459*** | 0.073 | 1.084 | 0.015 |
| Adult X Female | 1.282‡ | 0.049 | 3.296*** | 0.247 | 1.667*** | 0.107 |
| Household wealth quintile | ||||||
| Lowest (RC) | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – |
| Second | 0.971 | −0.006 | 0.913 | −0.019 | 0.960 | −0.008 |
| Middle | 0.849‡ | −0.029 | 0.852* | −0.031 | 0.962 | −0.008 |
| Fourth | 0.801** | −0.041 | 0.711*** | −0.065 | 0.950 | −0.011 |
| Highest | 0.989 | −0.002 | 0.646*** | −0.088 | 0.879‡ | −0.026 |
| Household sizeb | 0.831*** | −0.316 | ||||
| Household sizeb | ||||||
| 2–4 (RC) | 1.000 | – | ||||
| 5–6 | 0.452*** | −0.173 | ||||
| 7–8 | 0.246*** | −0.274 | ||||
| 9 + | 0.147*** | −0.338 | ||||
| Household sizeb | ||||||
| 2–4 (RC) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| 5–6 | 0.529*** | −0.150 | ||||
| 7–9 | 0.365*** | −0.234 | ||||
| 10 + | 0.207*** | −0.313 | ||||
| Number of nets in householdc | ||||||
| 1–2 (RC) | 1.00 | – | ||||
| 3–4 | 2.722*** | 0.240 | ||||
| 5 or more | 5.931*** | 0.415 | ||||
| Number of nets in householdc | ||||||
| 1–2 (RC) | 1.00 | – | ||||
| 3 or more | 2.793*** | 0.218 | ||||
| Number of nets in householdc | ||||||
| 0–1 (RC) | 1.00 | – | ||||
| 2 | 0.893*** | −0.028 | ||||
| 3 or more | 0.646*** | −0.100 | ||||
| Zone of residence | ||||||
| Highlands (RC) | 1.00 | – | ||||
| Sub-desert | 3.595*** | 0.278 | ||||
| Tropical | 2.928*** | 0.231 | ||||
| Equatorial | 5.076*** | 0.352 | ||||
| Region of residence | ||||||
| Koulikoro | 1.00 | – | ||||
| Sikasso | 1.787*** | 0.130 | ||||
| Mopti | 1.231*** | 0.045 | ||||
| Bamako | 0.952 | −0.010 | ||||
| State of residence | ||||||
| Akwa Ibom (RC) | 1.00 | – | ||||
| Kebbi | 1.487*** | 0.098 | ||||
| Nasarawa | 1.099‡ | 0.022 | ||||
| Caregiver’s education | ||||||
| Primary or less (RC) | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – |
| Post-primary | 0.925 | −0.011 | 0.849** | −0.032 | 0.957 | −0.010 |
| Caregiver’s religion | ||||||
| Non-Christian (RC) | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | ||
| Christian | 0.888‡ | −0.026 | 0.865* | −0.037 | ||
| Caregiver’s radio listening habits | ||||||
| Fewer than once a week (RC) | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – |
| At least once a week | 0.911 | −0.022 | 0.977 | −0.006 | 1.024 | 0.006 |
| Caregiver’s TV watching habits | ||||||
| Fewer than once a week (RC) | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – |
| At least once a week | 1.348** | 0.041 | 1.227*** | 0.051 | 1.034 | 0.008 |
| Caregiver’s exposure to messages on malaria | ||||||
| No exposure (RC) | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | ||
| Low | 0.975 | −0.006 | 0.962 | −0.009 | ||
| High | 1.447*** | 0.073 | 0.899 | −0.018 | ||
| Heard messages on malaria | 0.960 | −0.010 | ||||
| Caregiver’s perceived severity of malaria | ||||||
| Lower (RC) | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – |
| Higher | 0.971 | −0.006 | 0.973 | −0.007 | 0.885** | −0.031 |
| Caregiver’s perceived susceptibility to malaria | – | – | ||||
| Lower (RC) | 1.00 | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | ||
| Higher | 0.998 | −0.000 | 0.977 | − 0.006 | 0.927‡ | 0.019 |
| Caregiver’s perceived self-efficacy to prevent malaria | ||||||
| Lower (RC) | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – |
| Higher | 1.567*** | 0.061 | 1.068 | 0.016 | 1.034 | 0.008 |
| Caregiver’s perceived self-efficacy to detect a serious case of malaria | ||||||
| Lower (RC) | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – |
| Higher | 1.162** | 0.033 | 0.940 | −0.014 | 0.986 | −0.003 |
| Caregiver’s perceived response-efficacy of nets | ||||||
| Lower (RC) | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – |
| Higher | 1.137 | 0.017 | 1.060 | 0.012 | 0.919* | −0.021 |
| Caregiver’s awareness that fever is a symptom of malaria | ||||||
| Not aware (RC) | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | ||
| Aware | 0.985 | −0.003 | 1.155*** | 0.035 | ||
| Caregiver’s awareness that mosquito is the cause of malaria | ||||||
| Not aware (RC) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – |
| Aware | 0.982 | −0.003 | 1.365*** | 0.048 | 0.933 | −0.010 |
| Caregiver’s perceived self-efficacy to purchase enough nets | ||||||
| Lower (RC) | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | ||
| Higher | 1.344*** | 0.067 | 1.200*** | 0.044 | ||
| Discussed malaria with friends/relations | 1.057 | 0.013 | 0.996 | −0.001 | ||
| Participates in decisions about net allocation | 1.343*** | 0.061 | 0.998 | −0.001 | ||
| Attitudes towards nets | ||||||
| Negative (RC) | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | ||
| Positive | 1.020 | 0.005 | 0.968 | −0.008 | ||
| Perceived net use as the norm among in community | 1.391*** | 0.069 | 1.024 | 0.006 | ||
| Knows where to buy nets | 1.284*** | 0.058 | 1.023 | 0.005 | ||
| Willing to pay for nets | 1.015 | 0.003 | 1.045 | 0.011 | ||
| Pseudo-R2 | 17.1% | 9.9% | 8.6% | |||
| Hosmer-Lemeshow GOFd ( | 15.3/0.08 | 15.5/0.08 | 14.9/0.09 | |||
| Number of Observations | 9260 | 19,345 | 15,463 | |||
Notes: ‡ p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001
aFully (XY) standardized beta coefficients
bHousehold size was not normally distributed in Madagascar and Nigeria. The variable was differently categorized in the two countries in a way that helps to ensure model fit
cNumber of nets was not normally distributed in any of the study countries. The variable was differently categorized in the three countries in a way that helps to ensure model fit
dGOF Goodness of Fit
Fig. 2Predicted probability of household bed net use, by female caregiver’s cumulative ideation score, Madagascar 2014. Detailed legend: Probability of household bed net use as a function of female caregivers’ cumulative ideation score in Madagascar 2014 (range = 0–6, mean = 4.13, SD = 1.18)
Summary of ideational predictors of bed net use, by country
| Predictor | Country | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Madagascar | Mali | Nigeria | |
| Perceived severity of a malaria infection | ns | ns | – |
| Self-efficacy to detect severe case of malaria | + | ns | ns |
| Self-efficacy to prevent malaria | + | ns | ns |
| Self-efficacy to obtain enough nets for the household | + | + | ns |
| Response efficacy (belief that nets are effective) | ns | ns | – |
| Perceived community norm of bed net use | + | na | ns |
| Knowledge of where to get bed nets | + | na | ns |
| Knowledge that fever is a sign of malaria | ns | + | ns |
| Knowledge that mosquitos are the malaria vector | ns | + | ns |
| Participating in decision-making about net allocation | + | na | ns |
| Number of positively significant ideational predictors of bed net use | 7 | 3 | 0 |
Key: + (positively relationship), − (negatively significant), ns (not significant), na (not measured)