Figures & Tables
Figures
- FIGURE 1
Modes and Timing of ITN Distribution and Baseline and Endline Surveys, Cross River State, Nigeria, 2011–2014
Abbreviations: ANC, antenatal care; ITN, insecticide-treated net; LGA, local government area.
- FIGURE 2
Maps of Baseline and Endline Survey Strata by Mode of ITN Distribution per LGA, Cross River State, Nigeria
Abbreviations: ITN, insecticide-treated net; LGA, local government area.
- FIGURE 3
Trends in ITN Indicators From Baseline to Endline
Abbreviation: ITN, insecticide-treated net.
- FIGURE 4
Lorenz Concentration Curve Assessing Equity in Household ITN Ownership by Source of Net
Abbreviations: Anc, antenatal care; hh, household; ITN, insecticide-treated net.
Tables
- TABLE 1.
Baseline Characteristics of Survey Households, by Comparisona and School-Based Distribution Intervention Sites (N=753)
Comparison Intervention P Value Rest of Wave 1 (N=251) Ogoja LGA: 2 Rounds (N=286) Obubra LGA: 3 Rounds (N=216) No. of de-jure household members, mean 4.7 4.5 4.9 .33 No. of persons per sleeping room 2.2 2.4 2.3 .07 Households with any children under 5, % 33.1% 38.5% 37.1% .56 Households with a pregnant woman, % 8.6% 9.6% 12.3% .51 Households with any eligible school children, % – 36.7% 42.8% .19b Age of head of household, years, mean 41.3 43.4 41.4 .24 Female-headed households, % 18.4% 23.5% 22.5% .57 Educational achievement of head of household, % .09 Non-literate 10.7% 11.8% 21.4% Primary 22.6% 22.1% 31.3% Secondary 48.5% 48.2% 29.3% Tertiary 18.1% 18.0% 18.1% Household access to safe water, % 41.2% 35.8% 23.6% .47 Household access to any latrine, % 72.0% 66.0% 59.8% .33 Houses with modern roof (e.g., sheets, tiles), % 89.7% 92.2% 91.2% .81 Household ownership of radio, % 86.4% 81.8% 68.9% .02 Household ownership of mobile phone, % 83.7% 80.3% 66.7% .06 Household ownership of any means of transport, % 73.8% 58.2% 55.7% .007 Households registered by ITN campaign, % 48.0% 37.8% 44.9% .36 Household received any net from campaign, % 65.8% 47.0% 47.6% .006 No. of ITNs received, if any, mean 1.88 1.73 1.83 .61 - TABLE 2.
Baseline Characteristics for All Non-School Intervention LGAs in the Wave 1 Distribution (Baseline Comparison Group) and Ikom LGA Alone (Endline Comparison Group)
Rest of Wave 1 (N=251) Ikom LGA (N=34) P Value No. of de-jure household members, mean 4.7 4.8 .98 No. of persons per sleeping room 2.2 2.4 .20 Households with any children under 5, % 33.1% 26.0% .16 Households with a pregnant woman, % 8.6% 7.5% .86 Households with any eligible school children, % – – Age of head of household, years, mean 41.3 43.6 .38 Female-headed households, % 18.4% 15.2 .50 Educational achievement of head of household, % .14 Non-literate 10.7% 13.5% Primary 22.6% 16.8% Secondary 48.5% 36.2% Tertiary 18.1% 33.5% Household access to safe water, % 41.2% 28.5% .31 Household access to any latrine, % 72.0% 50.3% .06 Houses with modern roof (e.g., sheets, tiles), % 89.7% 96.6% .37 Household ownership of radio, % 86.4% 82.4% .38 Household ownership of mobile phone, % 83.7% 89.9% .44 Household ownership of any means of transport, % 73.8% 69.0% .50 Households registered by ITN campaign, % 48.0% 32.8% .02 Household received any net from campaign, % 65.8% 52.2% .13 No. of ITNs received, if any, mean 1.88 1.88 .94 Abbreviations: ITN, insecticide-treated net; LGA, local government area.
- TABLE 3.
ITN Ownership, Access, and Use (%) at Baseline and Endline, by Comparisona and Intervention Sites
Baseline (N=753) Endline (N=1,450) Rest of Wave 1(Comparison) Ogoja LGA(2 Rounds) Obubra LGA(3 Rounds) Ikom LGA(Comparison) Ogoja LGA(2 Rounds) Obubra LGA(3 Rounds) Household level Owns at least 1 ITN 63.9 (56.4, 70.8) 49.5 (44.7, 54.3) 51.1 (35.3, 66.7) 43.3(37.4, 49.4) 76.4(71.2, 81.0) 77.9(71.5, 83.1) Owns at least 1 ITN per 2 people 24.4 (17.8, 32.5) 17.7 (13.0, 23.7) 17.4 (11.8, 25.0) 13.9(10.7, 17.8) 29.9(25.1, 35.2) 30.3(26.1, 34.8) ITN supply Less than 1 ITN per 3 people 21.1(16.2, 27.2) 16.8 (13.1, 21.5) 20.8 (15.1, 27.9) 20.5(15.8, 26.2) 23.2(19.8, 26.9) 23.6(20.5, 27.0) 1 ITN per 3 people 18.4 (14.3, 23.2) 15.0(10.5, 20.9) 12.9(7.8, 20.6) 8.9(6.5, 12.0) 23.4(19.3, 27.9) 24.0(20.3, 28.1) 1 ITN per 2 people 21.1 (16.7, 26.2) 13.5 (9.7, 18.6) 14.5 (9.5, 21.6) 12.2(9.1, 16.2) 23.8(19.6, 28.5) 22.8(19.0, 27.0) 1 ITN or more per person 3.3 (1.2, 9.2) 4.2 (2.3, 7.6) 2.9 (1.1, 7.5) 1.7(0.9, 16.2) 6.2(4.1, 9.2) 7.5(5.2, 10.8) Population level Population access to ITNb 46.8 (40.0, 53.7) 35.7 (32.0, 39.5) 33.5(23.2, 45.6) 25.7(21.9, 29.9) 53.1(48.0, 58.0) 54.7(48.4, 60.9) ITN use previous night 41.8 (35.6, 48.3) 28.9 (26.1, 31.8) 28.5(17.9, 42.0) 16.8(13.7, 20.4) 24.0(20.6, 27.7) 31.6(26.1, 37.6) ITN use previous night among population with access to ITN 92.5 (86.3, 99.0) 84.7 (81.4, 88.5) 88.3(77.9, 99.8) 66.7(63.6, 70.3) 45.7(42.3, 49.4) 61.2(55.3, 66.7) Abbreviations: ITN, insecticide-treated net; LGA, local government area.
All data shown as % (95% confidence interval).
↵a The rest of the LGAs (8 total) in the wave 1 distribution served as the comparison group at baseline, while Ikom LGA served as the comparison at endline.
↵b Proportion of the population with access to an ITN within their household (assuming each ITN in a household can be used by 2 people).
Comparison Difference-in-Differences P Value HH owns any ITN Obubra (3 rounds) vs. Comparisona 58.8% <.001 Ogoja (2 rounds) vs. Comparisona 58.9% <.001 Obubra (3 rounds) vs. Ogoja (2 rounds) −0.01% .99 HH owns at least 1 ITN per 2 people Obubra (3 rounds) vs. Comparisona 28.2% <.001 Ogoja (2 rounds) vs. Comparisona 28.8% <.001 Obubra (3 rounds) vs. Ogoja (2 rounds) −0.6% .91 Population access to ITN within HHb Obubra (3 rounds) vs. Comparisona 49.6% <.001 Ogoja (2 rounds) vs. Comparisona 47.2% <.001 Obubra (3 rounds) vs. Ogoja (2 rounds) 2.4% .42 Abbreviations: HH, household; ITN, insecticide-treated net.
↵a The rest of the LGAs (8 total) in the wave 1 distribution served as the comparison group at baseline, while Ikom LGA served as the comparison group at endline.
↵b Proportion of the population with access to an ITN within their household (assuming each ITN in a household can be used by 2 people).
HH Source of ITN Ikom LGA (Comparison) Ogoja LGA (2 Rounds) Obubra LGA (3 Rounds) Any source No ITN 56.3 (50.5, 62.0) 22.1 (17.5, 27.6) 20.9 (15.9, 27.0) At least 1 net from school 0.0 43.0 (35.9, 50.5) 44.2 (35.9, 53.0) At least 1 net from campaign 31.5 (26.2, 37.3) 18.0 (12.3, 25.6) 29.0 (22.3, 36.8) At least 1 net from ANC 2.5 (1.4, 4.4) 9.8 (6.9, 13.6) 9.4 (7.1, 12.3) Other (family, private) 1.9 (0.7, 5.0) 2.5 (1.3, 4.5) 1.7 (0.8, 3.4) Unknown 8.1 (5.4, 11.9) 11.5 (8.2, 15.8) 6.9 (4.0, 11.6) 1 Source Campaign only 31.3 (26.0, 37.1) 11.9 (7.2, 19.0) 19.4 (13.8, 26.6) ANC only 2.3 (1.2, 4.2) 8.4 (5.5, 12.7) 5.6 (4.1, 7.7) School only 0.0 36.7 (29.9, 44.1) 34.2 (26.4, 43.0) 2 or more sources Campaign and ANC 0.2 (0.03, 1.5) 0.6 (0.2, 1.9) 1.3 (0.6, 2.6) Campaign and school 0.0 5.5 (3.6, 8.4) 7.5 (4.9, 11.3) ANC and school 0.0 0.8 (0.3, 2.1) 1.7 (0.7, 7.7) Campaign, ANC, and school 0.0 0.0 0.8 (0.3 - 2.1) Abbreviations: ANC, antenatal care; CI, confidence interval; HH, household; ITN, insecticide-treated net; LGA, local government area.
All data shown as % (95% confidence interval).
Ikom LGA (Comparison) Ogoja LGA (2 Rounds) Obubra LGA (3 Rounds) Exposed to information about nets past 6 months 31.5 (24.1, 39.9) 44.5 (37.6, 51.6) 50.7 (45.9, 55.6) Source of information if exposed Radio 75.0 (64.6, 83.1) 40.1 (30.9, 50.0) 35.0 (25.8, 45.4) Health worker (facility or community) 54.6 (46.1, 62.9) 54.4 (45.2, 63.2) 43.2 (33.4, 53.6) School 4.0 (2.0, 7.6) 17.1 (11.8, 24.0) 33.7 (24.0, 45.1) Community leader 7.9 (4.5, 13.4) 21.7 (13.7, 32.5) 11.1 (5.6, 20.7) Town announcer 24.3 (16.1, 35.0) 18.0 (10.0, 30.2) 8.6 (4.9, 14.9) Family or friends 20.4 (13.5, 29.6) 14.3 (10.0, 20.1) 14.0 (8.0, 23.2) Pharmacy or shop attendant 10.5 (5.3, 19.8) 0.9 (0.2, 3.5) 0.0 Mosque or church 2.0 (0.6, 6.2) 3.7 (1.8, 7.3) 11.5 (4.7, 25.8) Newspaper or TV 9.2 (5.3, 15.6) 1.8 (0.7, 4.8) 1.2 (0.3, 5.2) Mean number of information sources mentioned 2.6 (2.2, 3.0) 2.2 (1.7, 2.7) 1.9 (1.6, 2.2) Mean number of messages recalled if exposed 3.1 (2.7, 3.5) 2.6 (2.0, 3.3) 3.9 (3.5, 4.3) Message on net use recalled (all households) 29.0 (21.8, 37.5) 35.0 (29.4, 41.2) 45.3 (39.7, 51.0) Discussed net use with family 46.8 (40.3, 53.4) 59.0 (53.5, 64.4) 64.1 (57.1, 70.5) Intention to use nets regularly (most or all nights) 66.1 (59.1, 72.4) 73.4 (67.9, 78.2) 79.3 (74.1, 83.7) Child learned about malaria and/or nets at school if any schoolchild in household 37.8 (23.1, 55.3) 73.6 (66.5, 79.7) 64.2 (54.1, 73.2) Abbreviations: ITN, insecticide-treated net; LGA, local government area.
All data shown as % (95% confidence interval).
Supplemental material
- Text s01, PDF - Text s01, PDF
