Comparing insecticide-treated nets access-use based on universal household and population indicators vis-a-vis measures adapted to sleeping spaces in Ethiopia

• Published in: Malaria Journal
• Main Authors: Yohannes Kebede, Morankar Sudhakar, Guda Alemayehu, Lakew Abebe, Zewdie Birhanu
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2021
• Subjects: Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine; RC955-962; Infectious and parasitic diseases; RC109-216; Arctic
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-021-03887-9; https://doaj.org/article/07412f62dbc740c2952c2db13e59eb50

Abstract Background Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) access-use has been pivotal monitoring indicator for malaria prevention and control, particularly in resource limited settings. The objective of the study was to compare ITN access-use based on universal household and population indicators and measures adapted to sleeping spaces. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in five districts of Jimma Zone, Ethiopia, March, 2019. 762 HHs were sampled for the survey. Multi-stage followed by simple random sampling used. Monitoring and evaluation reference group’s (MERG’s) indicators were used for measuring ITN access-use. MERG’s indicators are each adapted ITN access-use to sleeping spaces. Household (ownership, saturation and sufficiency) and population access and household members’ status of last night sleeping under ITN compared based on the two models. Differences of estimates of ITN access-use based on the two methods reported as magnitude of over/under estimations, at p-value < 0.05. Results Based on MERG’s approach, the study revealed household (HH) based indicators as such: HH ownership of at least 1 ITN (92.6%), sufficiency of ITN for every two people in HH (50.3%), and saturation of ITN for every 2 people in HHs with any ITN (54.6%). Moreover, population based indicators were: population with ITN access (P3 = 78.6%), people who slept under ITN previous night (63.0%), people who slept under ITN among who accessed it (73.1%), ITN use-gap (26.9%). Equivalent indicators of HH ownership, sufficiency, saturation, and people accessed at where they actually slept, and people slept under ITN among those accessed at where they slept estimated at 71.3%, 49.4%, 69.3%, 66.3%, and 92.1%, respectively. MERG’s approach over-estimated ownership, people’s access, and behaviour-failures by 21.3%, 12.3%, 19.0%, respectively. Over-estimation occurred for reasons such as many sleeping spaces lack ITN and > 2 people actually slept per sleeping space. Conclusions MERG’s universal indicators over estimated households and ...