Cargando…

What happens to lost nets: a multi-country analysis of reasons for LLIN attrition using 14 household surveys in four countries

BACKGROUND: While significant focus has been given to net distribution, little is known about what is done with nets that leave a household, either to be used by others or when they are discarded. To better understand the magnitude of sharing LLIN between households and patterns of discarding LLIN,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Koenker, Hannah, Kilian, Albert, Zegers de Beyl, Celine, Onyefunafoa, Emmanuel O, Selby, Richmond A, Abeku, Tarekegn, Fotheringham, Megan, Lynch, Matthew
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4258934/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25430956
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-13-464
_version_ 1782347935845974016
author Koenker, Hannah
Kilian, Albert
Zegers de Beyl, Celine
Onyefunafoa, Emmanuel O
Selby, Richmond A
Abeku, Tarekegn
Fotheringham, Megan
Lynch, Matthew
author_facet Koenker, Hannah
Kilian, Albert
Zegers de Beyl, Celine
Onyefunafoa, Emmanuel O
Selby, Richmond A
Abeku, Tarekegn
Fotheringham, Megan
Lynch, Matthew
author_sort Koenker, Hannah
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: While significant focus has been given to net distribution, little is known about what is done with nets that leave a household, either to be used by others or when they are discarded. To better understand the magnitude of sharing LLIN between households and patterns of discarding LLIN, the present study pools data from 14 post-campaign surveys to draw larger conclusions about the fate of nets that leave households. METHODS: Data from 14 sub-national post-campaign surveys conducted in Ghana, Senegal, Nigeria (10 states), and Uganda between 2009 and 2012 were pooled. Survey design and data collection methods were similar across surveys. The timing of surveys ranged from 2–16 months following their respective mass LLIN distributions. RESULTS: Among the 14 surveys a total of 14,196 households reported owning 25,447 nets of any kind, of which 23,955 (94%) were LLINs. In addition, a total of 4,102 nets were reported to have left the households in the sample: 63% were discarded, and 34% were given away. Only 255 of the discarded nets were reported used for other purposes, representing less than 1% of the total sample of nets. The majority (62.5%) of nets given away were given to or taken by relatives, while 31.1% were given to non-relatives. Campaign nets were almost six times (OR 5.95, 4.25-8.32, p < 0.0001) more likely to be given away than non-campaign nets lost during the same period. Nets were primarily given away within the first few months after distribution. The overall rate of net redistribution was 5% of all nets. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Intra-household re-allocation of nets does occur, but was sensitive to current household net ownership and the time elapsed since mass distribution. These factors can be addressed programmatically to further facilitate reallocation within a given community. Secondly, the overwhelming majority of nets were used for malaria prevention. Of the repurposed nets (<1% overall), the majority were already considered too torn, indicating they had already served out their useful life for malaria prevention. National programmes and donor agencies should remain confident that overall, their investments in LLIN are being appropriately used.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4258934
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42589342014-12-09 What happens to lost nets: a multi-country analysis of reasons for LLIN attrition using 14 household surveys in four countries Koenker, Hannah Kilian, Albert Zegers de Beyl, Celine Onyefunafoa, Emmanuel O Selby, Richmond A Abeku, Tarekegn Fotheringham, Megan Lynch, Matthew Malar J Research BACKGROUND: While significant focus has been given to net distribution, little is known about what is done with nets that leave a household, either to be used by others or when they are discarded. To better understand the magnitude of sharing LLIN between households and patterns of discarding LLIN, the present study pools data from 14 post-campaign surveys to draw larger conclusions about the fate of nets that leave households. METHODS: Data from 14 sub-national post-campaign surveys conducted in Ghana, Senegal, Nigeria (10 states), and Uganda between 2009 and 2012 were pooled. Survey design and data collection methods were similar across surveys. The timing of surveys ranged from 2–16 months following their respective mass LLIN distributions. RESULTS: Among the 14 surveys a total of 14,196 households reported owning 25,447 nets of any kind, of which 23,955 (94%) were LLINs. In addition, a total of 4,102 nets were reported to have left the households in the sample: 63% were discarded, and 34% were given away. Only 255 of the discarded nets were reported used for other purposes, representing less than 1% of the total sample of nets. The majority (62.5%) of nets given away were given to or taken by relatives, while 31.1% were given to non-relatives. Campaign nets were almost six times (OR 5.95, 4.25-8.32, p < 0.0001) more likely to be given away than non-campaign nets lost during the same period. Nets were primarily given away within the first few months after distribution. The overall rate of net redistribution was 5% of all nets. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Intra-household re-allocation of nets does occur, but was sensitive to current household net ownership and the time elapsed since mass distribution. These factors can be addressed programmatically to further facilitate reallocation within a given community. Secondly, the overwhelming majority of nets were used for malaria prevention. Of the repurposed nets (<1% overall), the majority were already considered too torn, indicating they had already served out their useful life for malaria prevention. National programmes and donor agencies should remain confident that overall, their investments in LLIN are being appropriately used. BioMed Central 2014-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4258934/ /pubmed/25430956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-13-464 Text en © Koenker et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Koenker, Hannah
Kilian, Albert
Zegers de Beyl, Celine
Onyefunafoa, Emmanuel O
Selby, Richmond A
Abeku, Tarekegn
Fotheringham, Megan
Lynch, Matthew
What happens to lost nets: a multi-country analysis of reasons for LLIN attrition using 14 household surveys in four countries
title What happens to lost nets: a multi-country analysis of reasons for LLIN attrition using 14 household surveys in four countries
title_full What happens to lost nets: a multi-country analysis of reasons for LLIN attrition using 14 household surveys in four countries
title_fullStr What happens to lost nets: a multi-country analysis of reasons for LLIN attrition using 14 household surveys in four countries
title_full_unstemmed What happens to lost nets: a multi-country analysis of reasons for LLIN attrition using 14 household surveys in four countries
title_short What happens to lost nets: a multi-country analysis of reasons for LLIN attrition using 14 household surveys in four countries
title_sort what happens to lost nets: a multi-country analysis of reasons for llin attrition using 14 household surveys in four countries
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4258934/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25430956
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-13-464
work_keys_str_mv AT koenkerhannah whathappenstolostnetsamulticountryanalysisofreasonsforllinattritionusing14householdsurveysinfourcountries
AT kilianalbert whathappenstolostnetsamulticountryanalysisofreasonsforllinattritionusing14householdsurveysinfourcountries
AT zegersdebeylceline whathappenstolostnetsamulticountryanalysisofreasonsforllinattritionusing14householdsurveysinfourcountries
AT onyefunafoaemmanuelo whathappenstolostnetsamulticountryanalysisofreasonsforllinattritionusing14householdsurveysinfourcountries
AT selbyrichmonda whathappenstolostnetsamulticountryanalysisofreasonsforllinattritionusing14householdsurveysinfourcountries
AT abekutarekegn whathappenstolostnetsamulticountryanalysisofreasonsforllinattritionusing14householdsurveysinfourcountries
AT fotheringhammegan whathappenstolostnetsamulticountryanalysisofreasonsforllinattritionusing14householdsurveysinfourcountries
AT lynchmatthew whathappenstolostnetsamulticountryanalysisofreasonsforllinattritionusing14householdsurveysinfourcountries