4.3 Article

Insecticide-treated bednet use, anaemia, and malaria parasitaemia in Blantyre District, Malawi

Journal

TROPICAL MEDICINE & INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 220-230

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3156.2002.00846.x

Keywords

insecticide-treated bednets; malaria; social marketing; Malawi; Under-fives; morbidity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the use of insecticide-treated bednets and the effectiveness of social marketing for their distribution. Methods Systematic cluster sample survey of 1080 households in 36 census enumeration areas across Blantyre district, Malawi, in February 2000. RESULTS A total of 672 households had one or more children under 5. Bednet ownership was low (20.5% of households) overall. and significantly lower in rural areas than urban areas (6.4 vs. 29.8%, (P = 0.001). Only 3.3% of rural children under 5 had slept under a net the previous night, compared with 24.0% of urban children (P < 0.001). When asked why they did not own a net, nearly all (94.9%) caretakers in households without nets stated they had no money to buy them. In multivariate statistical models that controlled for the influence of house structure, urban vs. rural location, gender of the head of household, and the primary caretaker's education, rural children under 5 inhouseholds without nets experienced a statistically significant higher prevalence of malaria parasitaemia [RR (risk ratio) 4.9, 95%, CI (confidence interval) 2.3-10.5] than children in households with at least one bednet. This was also true for urban children under 5 (RR 2.1, 95% Cl 1.0-4.2, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION Social marketing approaches to promoting insecticide-treated nets in Blantyre District may have produced measurable health benefits for children in those households in which residents bought and used the products. Market-based approaches may take years to achieve high levels of coverage and may exaggerate inequities between urban and rural populations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available