| Literature DB >> 35177086 |
E 'Kuor Kumoji1, Grace N Awantang2, Michael Toso2, Diarra Kamara2, Thérèse Bleu3, Wani Lahai4, Musa Sillah-Kanu4, Abdul Dosso3, Dorothy Achu5, Stella Babalola2,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malaria is endemic to sub-Saharan African countries. Mass and routine distribution, promotion, and use of ITNs are critical components of malaria prevention programmes. Correct and consistent use of insecticide-treated mosquito nets (ITN) is an effective strategy for malaria prevention. To extend bed-net lifespan, the World Health Organization recommends folding or tying up ITNs when they are not in use. This study analyses factors associated with net care practices in three African countries.Entities:
Keywords: Bed nets; Cameroon; Côte d’Ivoire; Ideation; Insecticide-treated net; Malaria; Net care; Sierra Leone; Social and behaviour change communication
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35177086 PMCID: PMC8851768 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-022-04053-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Description of independent variables examined in analysis
| Background variables | Description |
|---|---|
| Gender | Male or female, as established during recruitment |
| Current age | Age in years |
| Education level | Highest level of formal school attended, if any |
| Exposure to messages in last six months | Whether respondent had seen or heard any messages about malaria in the past six months |
| Household size | Sum of household listing from household questionnaire Number of individuals, of any age, living in the household in question |
| Number of nets in the household | Sum of net listing from household questionnaire, total number of mosquito nets in the household |
| Household wealth quintile | Categorical variable with five potential values representing poorest to wealthiest household, a relative measure of wealth constructed using primary component analysis from questions related to characteristics of the interviewee’s dwelling (e.g., roof, wall, ceiling materials, access to utilities, and ownership of electronic devices, land, cattle) |
| Urban vs. rural setting | Refers to the relative population density of the enumeration cluster as determined by the institution who provided the enumeration maps for survey sampling |
| Region/ district/zone | Largest subnational administrative unit from which household were sampled |
| Ideational variables | |
| Positive net care attitudes* | Each respondent’s index score was summed across the statements. The resulting score for the two statements varied from -2 to + 2. A binary variable was created by classifying those with a negative or zero score as (0) not having positive net care attitudes. Those with a positive score (above zero, 1) were considered to have positive net care attitudes |
| Positive attitudes towards net use* | Each respondent’s index score was summed across the six statements. A binary variable was created by classifying those with a negative or zero score as (0) not having positive attitudes towards net use. Those with a positive score (above zero, 1) were considered to have positive attitudes towards net use |
| Severity of malaria * | Each respondent’s index score was summed across the four statements. A binary variable was created by classifying those with a negative or zero score as (0) not perceiving the consequences of malaria infection as severe (i.e., perceived severity of malaria). Those with a positive score (above zero, 1) were considered to perceive the consequence of malaria as severe |
| Perceived susceptibility to malaria* | Each respondent’s index score was summed across the four statements. A binary variable was created by classifying those with a negative or zero score as (0) not perceiving themselves as susceptible to malaria infection. Those with a positive score (above zero, 1) were considered to perceive themselves as susceptible to malaria infection |
| Discussed malaria with spouse, friends or relations in the last six months | Responses to the two questions were collapsed into a binary variable such that a respondent who answered “Yes” to both questions was assigned a value of (1) and a respondent who answered “No” to at least one question was assigned a value of (0) |
| Perceived response efficacy of nets* | Each respondent’s index score was summed across the three statements. A binary variable was created by classifying those with a negative or zero score as (0) not perceiving nets as an effective way to prevent malaria. Those with a positive score (above zero, 1) were considered to perceive nets as an effective way to prevent malaria |
| Perceived self-efficacy for net use* | Unlike the other Likert statements, respondents were asked to indicate if they were confident in their ability to perform a particular action by selecting “could,” or “could not.” Each respondent received a score for their response: (− 1) could not, (0) don’t know/not sure/missing, and (1) could. Each respondent’s index score was summed across the four statements. A binary variable was created by classifying those with a negative or zero score as (0) not being confident that they could use a net consistently. Those with a positive score (above zero, 1) were considered to be confident that they could use a net consistently |
| Perceived net use as the norm in one’s community | Responses to this question were re-coded such that respondents who indicated one of the first three options were coded (1) and respondents who indicated one of the last two options, or for whom the response was missing, were coded (0) |
*Variable was created based on scoring and dichotomizing the sum of scored Likert scale questions
Demographic characteristics of the sample by country
| Côte d’Ivoire | Cameroon | Sierra Leone | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Background characteristics | Weighted per cent | Unweighted per cent | Weighted per cent | Unweighted per cent | Weighted per cent | Unweighted per cent |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 45.5 | 21.6 | 44.2 | 20.9 | 47.8 | 16.4 |
| Female | 54.5 | 78.5 | 55.9 | 79.1 | 52.2 | 83.7 |
| Age category | ||||||
| 15–24 years | 19.1 | 24.2 | 21.8 | 28.9 | 22.9 | 34.5 |
| 25–34 years | 32.2 | 35.2 | 35.1 | 35.8 | 26.2 | 31.3 |
| 35–44 years | 28.9 | 26.4 | 27.7 | 24.1 | 28.8 | 24.5 |
| 45 + years | 19.8 | 14.2 | 15.4 | 11.2 | 22.1 | 9.7 |
| Religion | ||||||
| Christian | 50.2 | 53.1 | 44.3 | 47.5 | 19.9 | 16.2 |
| Muslim | 41.1 | 38.2 | 52.4 | 49.9 | 80.1 | 83.8 |
| Others | 8.8 | 8.7 | 3.3 | 2.7 | ||
| Educational level | ||||||
| No formal education or some primary | 33.8 | 48.5 | 62.2 | 63.4 | 45.4 | 49.0 |
| Completed primary | 22.7 | 23.9 | 31.1 | 29.0 | 18.0 | 21.8 |
| Completed secondary or higher | 43.5 | 35.5 | 6.7 | 7.7 | 36.6 | 29.3 |
| Rural | 37.6 | 46.0 | 67.3 | 51.8 | 70.2 | 80.63 |
| Urban | 64.4 | 53.9 | 32.7 | 48.2 | 29.8 | 19.37 |
| District/Region/Zone | ||||||
| Côte d’Ivoire | ||||||
| North | 15.5 | 19.3 | – | – | – | – |
| Central | 29.7 | 32.7 | – | – | – | – |
| South | 28.5 | 31.7 | – | – | – | – |
| Abidjan | 26.3 | 16.3 | – | – | – | – |
| Cameroon | ||||||
| North | – | – | 44.6 | 52.8 | – | – |
| Far North | – | – | 55.4 | 47.2 | – | – |
| Sierra Leone | ||||||
| Bo | – | – | – | – | 54.8 | 39.7 |
| Port Loko | – | – | – | – | 45.2 | 60.4 |
Results of multilevel logistic regression of folding or tying up bed nets on selected variables
| Correlates | Cameroon | Côte d’Ivoire | Sierra Leone | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AOR | 95% CI | AOR | 95% CI | AOR | 95% CI | |
| Individual characteristics | ||||||
| Gender | ||||||
| Male (RC†) | 1.000 | – | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| Female | 1.107 | 0.792–1.548 | 1.456** | 1.121–1.890 | 1.851*** | 1.342–2.555 |
| Age in years | 1.002 | 0.986–1.018 | 0.993 | 0.981–1.006 | 1.002 | 0.988–1.016 |
| Education level | ||||||
| None (RC) | 1.000 | – | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| Primary | 1.941 | 0.678–1.305 | 1.330* | 1.007–1.756 | 1.678** | 1.237–2.278 |
| Secondary or above | 1.105 | 0.610–2.000 | 1.242 | 0.930–1.660 | 1.144 | 0.827–1.582 |
| Exposure to malaria-related messages | ||||||
| None (RC) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
| At least one message | 1.426* | 1.042–1.952 | 1.197 | 0.946–1.514 | 1.157 | 0.861–1.557 |
| Consistent ITN use | ||||||
| No (RC) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
| Yes | 2.233*** | 1.557–3.202 | 4.575*** | 3.367–6.215 | 1.560** | 1.173–2.075 |
| Ideational variables | ||||||
| Positive attitudes towards net care (RC = negative attitude) | 1.983* | 1.112–3.535 | 1.850* | 1.144–2.991 | 1.667* | 1.083–2.565 |
| Positive attitude towards the use of bed nets (RC = negative attitude) | 2.079*** | 1.443–2.996 | 1.780** | 1.146–2.763 | 0.982 | 0.754–1.278 |
| Perceived severity of malaria (RC = Did not perceive) | 0.893 | 0.643–1.240 | 0.616*** | 0.487–0.778 | 0.974 | 0.766–1.239 |
| Perceived susceptibility for malaria (RC = Did not perceive) | 1.800** | 1.147–2.823 | 1.918*** | 1.460–2.520 | 1.297§ | 0.994–1.691 |
| In the last six months, talked to spouse/partner, friends, or relations about malaria | 0.862 | 0.583–1.274 | 2.200*** | 1.701–2.844 | 0.988 | 0.775–1.261 |
| Perceived response-efficacy of bed nets (RC = Did not perceive) | 0.576*** | 0.411–0.808 | 1.528*** | 1.208–1.932 | 1.920*** | 1.471–2.506 |
| Perceived self-efficacy for consistent use of bed nets (RC = Did not perceive) | 2.166*** | 1.452–3.230 | 1.218 | 0.829–1.789 | 2.507*** | 1.822–3.448 |
| Perceived consistent use of bed nets was a community norm (RC = Did not perceive) | 2.017 *** | 1.409–2.889 | 1.498** | 1.164–1.928 | 1.367§ | 0.934–2.002 |
| Household/Community Variables | ||||||
| Number of de facto household residents | 0.924* | 0.856–0.998 | 1.001 | 0.943–1.062 | 1.000 | 0.953–1.048 |
| Number of nets in the household | 1.127§ | 0.978–1.300 | 1.172** | 1.046–1.314 | 0.983 | 0.858–1.125 |
| Household wealth quintile | ||||||
| Lowest (RC) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
| Second | 1.155 | 0.713–1.871 | 1.797** | 1.180–2.736 | 0.885 | 0.616–1.273 |
| Middle | 1.174 | 0.676–2.038 | 2.290** | 1.438–3.647 | 0.848 | 0.581–1.238 |
| Fourth | 0.847 | 0.465–1.542 | 1.799* | 1.089–2.982 | 1.141 | 0.747–1.742 |
| Highest | 0.507§ | 0.255–1.007 | 2.004* | 1/157–3.470 | 1.215 | 0.737–2.004 |
| Type of place of residence | ||||||
| Rural (RC) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
| Urban | 1.084 | 0.592–1.983 | 0.557** | 0.371–0.838 | 2.13** | 1.237–3.668 |
| Region | ||||||
| North region (RC) | 1.000 | — | — | |||
| Far North | 0.220*** | 0.126–0.385 | ||||
| Zone | ||||||
| North (RC) | — | 1.000 | — | |||
| Centre | 0.499* | 0.290–0.858 | ||||
| South | 0.871 | 0.511–1.486 | ||||
| Abidjan | 0.616 | 0.314–1.208 | ||||
| District | ||||||
| Bo (RC) | — | — | 1.000 | |||
| Port Loko | 0.503*** | 0.342–0.739 | ||||
| Random Effects | ||||||
| Variance: Household | 4.806 | 3.481–6.636 | 9.378 | 7.377–11.269 | 0.793 | 0.431–1.458 |
| ICC‡: Household | 0.660 | 0.589–0.724 | 0.759 | 0.711–0.791 | 0.272 | 0.189–0.374 |
| Variance: Cluster | 1.571 | 1.002–2.464 | 0.999 | 0.636–1.565 | 0.435 | 0.247–0.768 |
| ICC: Cluster | 0.163 | 0.113–0.227 | 0.074 | 0.050–0.109 | 0.096 | 0.057–0.157 |
| Number of observations | 2940 | 6040 | 2730 | |||
§p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001
†Reference Category (RC); ‡ Intra-class Cluster Coefficient (ICC)
Survey data was collected during the rainy season between 2018 and 2019