Interpreting household survey data intended to measure insecticide-treated bednet coverage: results from two surveys in Eritrea

• Published in: Malaria Journal
• Main Authors: Yukich Josh, Macintyre Kate, Eisele Thomas P, Ghebremeskel Tewolde
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2006
• Subjects: Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine; RC955-962; Infectious and parasitic diseases; RC109-216; Arctic; Barka
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-5-36; https://doaj.org/article/21b83732931740fb9fa2b74d67d646e8

Abstract Background As efforts are currently underway to roll-out insecticide-treated bednets (ITNs) to populations within malarious areas in Africa, there is an unprecedented need for data to measure the effectiveness of such programmes in terms of population coverage. This paper examines methodological issues to using household surveys to measure core Roll Back Malaria coverage indicators of ITN possession and use. Methods ITN coverage estimates within Anseba and Gash Barka Provinces from the 2002 Eritrean Demographic and Health Survey, implemented just prior to a large-scale ITN distribution programme, are compared to estimates from the same area from a sub-national Bednet Survey implemented 18 months later in 2003 after the roll-out of the ITN programme. Results Measures of bednet possession were dramatically higher in 2003 compared to 2002. In 2003, 82.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 77.4–87.0) of households in Anseba and Gash Barka possessed at least one ITN. RBM coverage indicators for ITN use were also dramatically higher in 2003 as compared to 2002, with 76.1% (95% CI 69.9–82.2) of children under five years old and 52.4% (95% CI 38.2–66.6) of pregnant women sleeping under ITNs. The ITN distribution programme resulted in a gross increase in ITN use among children and pregnant women of 68.3% and 48% respectively. Conclusion Eritrea has exceeded the Abuja targets of 60% coverage for ITN household possession and use among children under five years old within two malarious provinces. Results point to several important potential sources of bias that must be considered when interpreting data for ITN coverage over time, including: disparate survey universes and target populations that may include non-malarious areas; poor date recall of bednet procurement and treatment; and differences in timing of surveys with respect to malaria season.