Cargando…

Quantifying bias in measuring insecticide-treated bednet use: meta-analysis of self-reported vs objectively measured adherence

BACKGROUND: Insecticide-treated bednets (ITNs) are recommended for use by 3.4 billion people at risk of malaria world-wide. Policy makers rely on measurements of ITN use to optimize malaria prevention efforts. Self-reports are the most common means of assessing ITN use, but self-reports may be biase...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Krezanoski, Paul J, Bangsberg, David R, Tsai, Alexander C
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Edinburgh University Global Health Society 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5878861/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29619211
http://dx.doi.org/10.7189/jogh.08.010411
_version_ 1783310904514838528
author Krezanoski, Paul J
Bangsberg, David R
Tsai, Alexander C
author_facet Krezanoski, Paul J
Bangsberg, David R
Tsai, Alexander C
author_sort Krezanoski, Paul J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Insecticide-treated bednets (ITNs) are recommended for use by 3.4 billion people at risk of malaria world-wide. Policy makers rely on measurements of ITN use to optimize malaria prevention efforts. Self-reports are the most common means of assessing ITN use, but self-reports may be biased in a way that reduces their reliability as a proxy for ITN adherence. This meta-analysis compared self-reported and two methods which are more objective measures of ITN use to explore whether self-reports overestimate actual ITN adherence. METHODS: A comprehensive search of electronic databases and hand searching reference lists resulted in screening 2885 records and 202 articles were read in full. Sixteen articles with comparable data were chosen for the meta-analysis. Comparable data was defined as self-reported and objectively measured ITN use (observation of a mounted ITN or surprise visits confirming use) at the same unit of analysis, covering the same time period and same population. A random effects model was used to determine a weighted average risk difference between self-reported and objectively measured ITN use. Additional stratified analyses were conducted to explore study heterogeneity. RESULTS: Self-reported ITN use is 8 percentage points (95% confidence interval CI: 3 to 13) higher than objectively measured ITN use, representing a 13.6% overestimation relative to the proportion measured as adherent to ITN use by objective measures. Wide variations in the discrepancies between self-reports and objective measures were unable to be explained using stratified analyses of variables including location, year of publication, seasonality and others. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reports overestimate ITN adherence relative to objectively measured ITN use by 13.6% and do so in an unpredictable manner that raises questions about the reliability of using self-reported ITN use alone as a surveillance tool and a guide for making policy decisions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5878861
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Edinburgh University Global Health Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58788612018-04-04 Quantifying bias in measuring insecticide-treated bednet use: meta-analysis of self-reported vs objectively measured adherence Krezanoski, Paul J Bangsberg, David R Tsai, Alexander C J Glob Health Articles BACKGROUND: Insecticide-treated bednets (ITNs) are recommended for use by 3.4 billion people at risk of malaria world-wide. Policy makers rely on measurements of ITN use to optimize malaria prevention efforts. Self-reports are the most common means of assessing ITN use, but self-reports may be biased in a way that reduces their reliability as a proxy for ITN adherence. This meta-analysis compared self-reported and two methods which are more objective measures of ITN use to explore whether self-reports overestimate actual ITN adherence. METHODS: A comprehensive search of electronic databases and hand searching reference lists resulted in screening 2885 records and 202 articles were read in full. Sixteen articles with comparable data were chosen for the meta-analysis. Comparable data was defined as self-reported and objectively measured ITN use (observation of a mounted ITN or surprise visits confirming use) at the same unit of analysis, covering the same time period and same population. A random effects model was used to determine a weighted average risk difference between self-reported and objectively measured ITN use. Additional stratified analyses were conducted to explore study heterogeneity. RESULTS: Self-reported ITN use is 8 percentage points (95% confidence interval CI: 3 to 13) higher than objectively measured ITN use, representing a 13.6% overestimation relative to the proportion measured as adherent to ITN use by objective measures. Wide variations in the discrepancies between self-reports and objective measures were unable to be explained using stratified analyses of variables including location, year of publication, seasonality and others. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reports overestimate ITN adherence relative to objectively measured ITN use by 13.6% and do so in an unpredictable manner that raises questions about the reliability of using self-reported ITN use alone as a surveillance tool and a guide for making policy decisions. Edinburgh University Global Health Society 2018-06 2018-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC5878861/ /pubmed/29619211 http://dx.doi.org/10.7189/jogh.08.010411 Text en Copyright © 2018 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Articles
Krezanoski, Paul J
Bangsberg, David R
Tsai, Alexander C
Quantifying bias in measuring insecticide-treated bednet use: meta-analysis of self-reported vs objectively measured adherence
title Quantifying bias in measuring insecticide-treated bednet use: meta-analysis of self-reported vs objectively measured adherence
title_full Quantifying bias in measuring insecticide-treated bednet use: meta-analysis of self-reported vs objectively measured adherence
title_fullStr Quantifying bias in measuring insecticide-treated bednet use: meta-analysis of self-reported vs objectively measured adherence
title_full_unstemmed Quantifying bias in measuring insecticide-treated bednet use: meta-analysis of self-reported vs objectively measured adherence
title_short Quantifying bias in measuring insecticide-treated bednet use: meta-analysis of self-reported vs objectively measured adherence
title_sort quantifying bias in measuring insecticide-treated bednet use: meta-analysis of self-reported vs objectively measured adherence
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5878861/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29619211
http://dx.doi.org/10.7189/jogh.08.010411
work_keys_str_mv AT krezanoskipaulj quantifyingbiasinmeasuringinsecticidetreatedbednetusemetaanalysisofselfreportedvsobjectivelymeasuredadherence
AT bangsbergdavidr quantifyingbiasinmeasuringinsecticidetreatedbednetusemetaanalysisofselfreportedvsobjectivelymeasuredadherence
AT tsaialexanderc quantifyingbiasinmeasuringinsecticidetreatedbednetusemetaanalysisofselfreportedvsobjectivelymeasuredadherence