4.8 Article

Coverage and system efficiencies of insecticide-treated nets in Africa from 2000 to 2017

Journal

ELIFE
Volume 4, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELIFE SCIENCES PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.09672

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [K00669X]
  2. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1068048, OPP1110495, OPP1106023, OPP1119467, OPP1093011]
  3. Foundation for the National Institutes of Health [U19AI089674]
  4. Fogarty International Center
  5. Wellcome Trust [091835, 095066]
  6. World Health Organization
  7. Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
  8. Department for International Development
  9. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1119467, OPP1093011] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  10. MRC [MR/K00669X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  11. Medical Research Council [MR/K00669X/1, MR/K010174/1B] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) for malaria control are widespread but coverage remains inadequate. We developed a Bayesian model using data from 102 national surveys, triangulated against delivery data and distribution reports, to generate year-by-year estimates of four ITN coverage indicators. We explored the impact of two potential 'inefficiencies': uneven net distribution among households and rapid rates of net loss from households. We estimated that, in 2013, 21% (17%-26%) of ITNs were over-allocated and this has worsened over time as overall net provision has increased. We estimated that rates of ITN loss from households are more rapid than previously thought, with 50% lost after 23 (20-28) months. We predict that the current estimate of 920 million additional ITNs required to achieve universal coverage would in reality yield a lower level of coverage (77% population access). By improving efficiency, however, the 920 million ITNs could yield population access as high as 95%.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available