Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2009
Determinants of bednet ownership and use in visceral leishmaniasis-endemic areas of the Indian subcontinent.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vanlerberghe V, Singh S P, Paudel I S, Ostyn B, Picado A, Sánchez A, Rijal S, Sundar S, Davies C, Boelaert M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To document ownership and use of bednets with its determinants in the visceral leishmaniasis (VL)-endemic region where mainly non-insecticide impregnated nets are available through commercial channels, and bednets are being considered as a leishmaniasis vector control measure.
METHODS: In August-September 2006, semi-structured household (HH) questionnaires and observation guides were used in a random sample of 1330 HHs in VL-endemic districts of India and Nepal to collect data on VL knowledge, HH socio-economic status, bednet ownership and use patterns. An asset index was constructed to allow wealth ranking of the HH. A binary logistic response General Estimating Equations model was fitted to evaluate the determinants of bednet ownership and use.
RESULTS: The proportion of HHs with at least one bednet purchased on the commercial market was 81.5% in India and 70.2% in Nepal. The bednets were used in all seasons by 50.6% and 54.1% of the Indian and Nepalese HH owning a bed net. There was striking inequity in bednet ownership: only 38.3% of the poorest quintile in Nepal owned at least one net, compared to 89.7% of the wealthiest quintile. In India, the same trend was observed though somewhat less pronounced (73.6%vs. 93.7%). Multivariate analysis showed that poverty was an important independent predictor for not having a bednet in the HH [OR 5.39 (2.90-10.03)].
CONCLUSION: Given the inequity in commercial bednet ownership, free distribution of insecticide-treated bednets to the general population seems imperative to achieve a mass effect on vector density.
METHODS: In August-September 2006, semi-structured household (HH) questionnaires and observation guides were used in a random sample of 1330 HHs in VL-endemic districts of India and Nepal to collect data on VL knowledge, HH socio-economic status, bednet ownership and use patterns. An asset index was constructed to allow wealth ranking of the HH. A binary logistic response General Estimating Equations model was fitted to evaluate the determinants of bednet ownership and use.
RESULTS: The proportion of HHs with at least one bednet purchased on the commercial market was 81.5% in India and 70.2% in Nepal. The bednets were used in all seasons by 50.6% and 54.1% of the Indian and Nepalese HH owning a bed net. There was striking inequity in bednet ownership: only 38.3% of the poorest quintile in Nepal owned at least one net, compared to 89.7% of the wealthiest quintile. In India, the same trend was observed though somewhat less pronounced (73.6%vs. 93.7%). Multivariate analysis showed that poverty was an important independent predictor for not having a bednet in the HH [OR 5.39 (2.90-10.03)].
CONCLUSION: Given the inequity in commercial bednet ownership, free distribution of insecticide-treated bednets to the general population seems imperative to achieve a mass effect on vector density.