Community-level impacts of the coronavirus pandemic on malaria prevention and health-seeking behaviours in rural Benin: A mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on malaria prevention and control efforts have been caused by delayed distributions of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLIN), decreased outpatient attendance, and disruptions to malaria testing and treatment. Using a mixed methods approach, we aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on community-level malaria prevention and health-seeking practices in Benin more than one year after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. We collected data through community-based cross-sectional surveys with 4200 households and ten focus group discussions (FGDs). Mixed effect logistic regression models accounting for a clustered sampling design were used to identify variables associated with main outcomes (good COVID-19 knowledge, LLIN usage and access, and avoidance of health centres). Consistent with the experiences of FGD participants, receiving information from radios or televisions was significantly associated with good COVID-19 knowledge and avoiding health centres because of the pandemic (p<0.001 for both). Qualitative findings also revealed varying and polarizing changes in health-seeking behaviours with participants noting that they either did not change their health-seeking behaviours or went to health centres less or more often because of the pandemic. LLIN usage and access did not decrease in the study area because of the pandemic (LLIN usage: 88% in 2019 to 99.9% in 2021; LLIN access: 62% in 2019 to 73% in 2021). An unexpected change and unintended challenge for sustained malaria prevention included families socially distancing in their homes, resulting in a shortage of LLINs. Our findings showed that there were minimal community-level impacts of the coronavirus pandemic on malaria prevention and health seeking behaviours in rural Benin, which highlights the importance of efforts to sustain malaria prevention and control interventions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".