Ownership and use of long-lasting insecticidal nets for malaria prevention in Butajira area, south-central Ethiopia: complex samples data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the encroaching of endemic malaria to highland-fringe areas above 2000 meters above sea level in Ethiopia, there is limited information on ownership and use of mosquito nets for malaria prevention. Thus, this study was designed to assess long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLIN) possession and use for malaria prevention in highland-fringe of south-central Ethiopia. A multi-stage sampling technique was employed to obtain household data from randomly selected households using household head interview in October and November 2008. Household LLIN possession and use was assessed using adjusted Odds Ratio obtained from complex samples logistic regression analysis. Only less than a quarter (23.1%) of 739 households interviewed owned LLINs with more differences between low (54.2%) high (3.5%) altitudes (Χ 2 =253, P < 0.001). Higher LLIN ownership was observed in illiterate (adj.OR 35.1 [10.6-116.2]), male-headed (adj.OR 1.7 [1.051-2.89]), owning two or more beds (adj.OR 2.7 [1.6-4.6]), not doing draining/refilling of mosquito breeding sites (adj.OR 3.4 [2.1-5.5]) and absence of rivers or streams (adj.OR 6.4 [3.5-11.8]) of household variables. The presence of ≥2 LLINs hanging (adj.OR 21.0 [5.2-85.1]), owning two or more LLINs (adj.OR 4.8 [1.3-17.5]), not doing draining/refilling of mosquito breeding sites (adj.OR 4.2 [1.3-13.6]), low wealth status (adj.OR 3.55 [1.04-12.14]), and < 1 km distance from absence of rivers or streams (adj.OR 3.9 [1.2-12.1]) of households was associated with more likely use of LLIN. The LLIN ownership was low in the highlands, and most of the highland users bought the bed nets themselves. This study found a low household LLIN ownership and use in the highland-fringe rural area. Therefore, improving the availability and teaching effective use of LLIN combined with removal of temporary mosquito breeding places should be prioritized in highland-fringe areas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".