Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Nov 2;18(11):e0293728. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293728

Assessment of long-lasting insecticide nets coverage, utilization, and associated factors among households in malaria elimination districts of Arsi Zone, Oromia Region, Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study

Olana Yadate Hunde 1, Haimanot Ewnetu Hailu 1,*,#, Jimmawork Wondimu 1,#, Belachew Dinku 1,#, Wegene Ewnetu 2,#
Editor: Bosco Bekiita Agaba3
PMCID: PMC10621819  PMID: 37917649

Abstract

Background

Malaria is a major global public health problem, with a particular burden of disease in sub-Saharan Africa including Ethiopia. Access to Long Lasting Insecticide Nets (LLINs) for at-risk populations, ensuring its appropriate utilization and identifying the barriers are important for malaria prevention, control and elimination. This study aimed to assess coverage, utilization and associated factors of Long Lasting Insecticide Nets (LLINs) among households in the Arsi Zone of Oromia Region, Ethiopia.

Methods

Community-based cross-sectional study was conducted from October to December 2021. Multi-stage sampling technique was used to recruit 1250 households from five districts out of 21 Malarious districts in the Zone. Proportional allocations of households were done in each sampled kebeles and simple random sampling was used to draw the study participants. Data were collected by trained data collectors using a pre-tested structured questionnaire and observation. The collected data were exported to and analyzed using SPSS version 23. Variables with a p-value below 0.2 at bivariable logistic regression analysis were entered into the multivariable logistic regression model. We presented findings using an adjusted odds ratio with 95%CI at a p-value of less than 0.05.

Results

Out of the total of 1250 households 99.5% of surveyed owned LLINs and 27.1% of them had slept under the net the night before the survey. The factors associated with LLIN usage included being in the age range of 40 to 49 years (AOR; 1.82, 95%CI 1.01–3.25), preference for conical-shaped LLINs (AOR = 2.36; 95% CI: 1.33–4.18), not believing LLINs expired within 6 months (AOR 3.75, 95% CI 2.31–6.09), reporting a mosquito bite as a mode of malaria transmission (AOR = 2.46; 95%CI: 1.01–5.98), employed (AOR = 9.0; 95%CI: (4.22–20.02) and type of sleeping bed (AOR =: 17.4; 95% CI, 11.74–26.03). On the other hand, households with two and above sleeping rooms were less likely to use LLINs (AOR = 0.46; (95% CI: 0.23–0.88).

Conclusion

Even though the ownership of Long Lasting Insecticidal Nets was high, the actual utilization was very low. Promoting the usage of LLINs utilization among those at most risk, through intensified health education activities will be helpful.

Background

Malaria is caused by the protozoan parasite Plasmodium, which is transmitted by female Anopheles mosquitoes. Plasmodium falciparum remains the most dangerous and is responsible for the majority of malaria-related deaths than other species like P. vivax, P. malariae, P. ovale, and P. knowlesi [1]. Malaria continues to cause unacceptably high levels of morbidity and mortality. According to WHO report, there were an estimated 229,000 cases and 409,000 deaths globally in 2019 [2]. About 90% of all malaria deaths in the world today occur in Africa south of the Sahara. An estimated one million people in Africa die from malaria each year and most of these are children under 5 years old [3]. In addition to health impacts; malaria causes; a significant impairment to social and economic development; loss of workforce time both of the sick and the family members, who provide care, depletion of income as well as school absenteeism [4].

In Ethiopia, malaria is one of the major public health challenges with an estimated 68% (52 million) of the population is at risk of contracting malaria. Malaria transmission is seasonal and predominantly unstable, with frequent and often large-scale epidemics [5,6]. The main malaria parasites are P. falciparum and P. vivax, accounting for 60% and 40% of all cases, respectively. Anopheles arabiensis is the main vector and Anopheles pharoensis is also widely distributed in the country and is considered to play a secondary role in malaria transmission [6,7].

The government of Ethiopia is exerting a huge work force to fight against malaria starting during 2004. Accordingly, significant reductions in malaria mortality and morbidity have been achieved in the country in the last decades [8]. Currently; National Malaria Strategic Plan has been developed in alignment with the Global Technical Strategy (GTS) for Malaria elimination, which set milestones for 2030. The National Malaria Strategic Plan (NMSP) sets for achieving more than 75% reduction in malaria related morbidity and mortality by the year 2025 from the baseline of 2015 and malaria elimination targets by 2030 through different key strategic interventions [8].

The main strategies and interventions for malaria prevention, control and elimination are strengthening malaria vector control measures which help reducing-human-vector contact and controlling adult mosquito through distribution of Long Lasting Insecticide Nets (LLINs) and ensuring its appropriate utilization and targeted Indoor Residual Spray (IRS) [7].

Thus, appropriate utilization of LLINs and identifying the barriers or enablers are important for responding to and scale-up strategies to keep up the momentum of malaria prevention, control and elimination strategies. Therefore, this study aims to assess LLINs coverage, utilization and associated factors of among households in malaria elimination districts of Arsi Zone, Oromia Region, Ethiopia.

Methods and materials

A community based cross-sectional study was conducted in districts of Arsi Zone of Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Multi-stage sampling followed by simple random sampling technique was used to recruit 1250 households from five districts out of 21 Malarious districts in the Zone from October to December 2021. The sample size was calculated by using single population proportion formula using proportion of LLINs utilization of 60.6% from similar study [9]. Design effect of 2 and 10% nonresponse rate were used for final sample size.

A structured questionnaire was administered to identify socio-demographic, LLINs availability and status, LLIN use, and observation was made to inspection condition and handling of the LLINs. The tool was translated to Afan Oromo (local language) and back translation was done to check consistency. Then, women and/or head of HHs were interviewed to obtain respective information. Direct observation of the LLINs was made to verify their condition and where it was placed in the house. Each household was labeled by unique identification number during interviews and the authors had access to information that could identify individual participants during or after data collection.

The data collected was checked for completeness and entered into Epidata for data cleaning. Then, it exported to SPSS version 23 for data analysis. Frequencies and proportions were calculated for socio-demographic characteristics, and knowledge, perception and practices related to malaria transmission and prevention. Utilization of LLIN was estimated based on whether households have used at least one LLIN the night before the assessment took place.

A binary logistic regression analysis was used to examine the determinants of LLIN utilization and variables with a p-value below 0.2 during bivariate analysis was entered into the multivariable logistic regression model. A p-value of less than 0.05 in multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to declare a statistical significance. Both crude and adjusted odds ratios were presented with a 95% confidence interval. Cases with missing data were eliminated in the multivariate logistic regression analyses.

Operational definitions

  • HH fully covered by LLINs: A household with LLINs for each and every sleeping area/beds and observed by enumerators during data collection [10].

  • LLINs ownership: HHs with one or more LLINs per household [10].

  • Proper utilization: Refers to HHs that owned LLINs in which one or more members of the HH slept under a net, confirmed through observation by enumerators during the early morning preceding this study [11].

  • Access: The proportion of the population that could sleep under an LLIN if each LLIN in the household was used by up to two people

  • LLINs: Are nets that are treated at factory level by a process that binds or incorporates insecticide into the fibers. They are designed to maintain their biological efficacy against vector mosquitoes for at least 3 years [12].

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

A total of 1250 households were included in this study. Of the total households included in the study, 1005 (80.4%) of the respondents were females. The median age of the respondent was 37.8 years. Family size ranged from 1 to 8, with a mean of 4.9 persons per household. The surveyed households had a total of 6134 family members; of which 762 (12.4%) were children under 5 years and 209 (3.4%) were pregnant women. Most of the respondents 873 (69.8%) were farmers and 568 (45.4%) of them had not attended formal education.

Malaria related awareness of respondents

Almost all of the participants had heard about malaria as it is the health problem and mention that mosquito bites were the cause of malaria. The majority of participants 1220 (97.6%) believed that LLINs is used to prevent malaria (Table 1).

Table 1. Awareness of households on malaria and long-lasting insecticide nets in Arsi Zone of Oromia Region, Ethiopia, 2021.

Variables Categories Frequency Percentage
Heard about malaria Yes 1244 99.5
No 6 0.5
Malaria transmission Mosquito bite 1185 94.8
Other modes 65 5.2
Preventive measure LLINs 1220 97.6
IRS 23 1.8
Drainage stagnant water and others 7 0.6
Mosquito biting time All the time 221 17.7
At night time 990 79.2
Day time 39 3.1
Educational message on LLINs Yes 1227 98.2
No 23 1.8
Source of information HEW 1033 82.6
Media 199 16.0
Others 18 1.4
Use of LLINs Yes 1208 96.6
No 42 3.4

LLINs coverage and utilization

All visited households owned at least one LLIN. However, out of the 1250 households that owned LLINs, 349 (27.1%) had slept under it the night prior to the survey. LLINs are mainly utilized by all family members in more than ¾th (81.8%) of the households, while children under 5 years of age or pregnant mothers are given priority in only 135 (10.8%) and 93 (7.4%) households respectively. Regarding periods of LLINs use, 36.3% of respondents used it during rainy season while 23.8% of the study participants used LLINs throughout the year. Respondents underscored the role of weather as one of the reasons for inconsistent LLIN use. However, only 8.1% use LLIN during hot weather because it is uncomfortable and they frequently use it during rainy seasons as malaria transmission is higher during rainy session, and the temperature is relatively low according to their reports. Some households were using LLINs for unintended purposes like rapping over mattresses to protect from bugs, for carrying grain, for spreading grains on the sunshine, using as curtain and other similar purposes were observed during the assessment (Table 2 and Fig 1).

Table 2. Long lasting insecticidal nets utilization in Arsi Zone of Oromia Region, Ethiopia, 2021.

Variables Categories Frequency Percentage
Were LLINs used last night Yes 349 27.9
No 901 72.1
Reason for not using No malaria now 532 42.6
For other purpose 324 25.9
Too hot 28 2.2
Attract other insects 17 1.4
Priority to sleep under LLIN Under five children 135 10.8
Pregnant women 93 7.4
All family 1022 81.8
Periods to use LLINs All the year 298 23.8
Dry season 101 8.1
Rainy season 454 36.3
Condition of LLINs Good 560 44.8
Poor 690 55.2
Sleeping place Foam mattress 646 51.7
Grass mattress 604 48.3
Where it found Inside 695 55.6
Outside 305 24.4
Discarded 250 20.0
Walls of the room status Concrete 585 46.8
Mud with wood frame 665 53.2

Fig 1. Misuse and inappropriate use of LLINs.

Fig 1

Factors associated with LLINs utilization

Variables with a p ≤ 0.2 during the bivariate analysis were included in the final model. In the multivariable analysis, age of respondents, residence, occupational status of head of household, perception about LLINs expiry date, awareness on the mode of malaria transmission, number of sleeping rooms, type of sleeping beds, and preference for conical-shaped LLINs were significantly associated with LLINs utilization. Households in age group of 40 to 49 years were 1.82 times more likely to use LLINs as compared to under 30 years (AOR; 1.82, 95%CI 1.01–3.25). The odds of using LLINs among the employed were 9 times (AOR = 9.0; 95%CI: (4.22–20.02) compared to the merchants. The odds of using LLINs among households of urban residents were 4.09 times (AOR = 4.09; 95%CI: 2.53–6.62) compared to rural residents. Accordingly, the odds of using LLINs among respondents who said malaria was transmitted through mosquito bite was 2.46 times (AOR = 2.46; 95%CI: 1.01–5.98) higher than those who mention another mode such as shortage of food. Additionally, the odds of LLINs use were 3.75 times higher among households that did not perceive LLINs expired within 6 months (AOR 3.75, 95% CI 2.31–6.09) than those who perceive LLINs expired within 6 months. On the other hand, households with two and above sleeping rooms were 54% less likely to use LLINs than those with one sleeping room (AOR = 0.46; (95% CI: 0.23–0.88). The odds of LLIN use among households who use foam mattress for sleeping was 17.4 times (AOR = 17.4; (95% CI: 11.74–26.03) higher as compared with those who use grass mattresses for sleeping. Similarly, respondents who preferred conical-shaped LLINs were 2.36 times more likely to use LLINs than those who preferred rectangular shaped (AOR = 2.36; 95% CI: 1.33–4.18) (Table 3).

Table 3. Multivariable analysis for factors associated with the use of LLINs in Arsi Zone of Oromia Region, Ethiopia, 2021.

Variables LLIN utilization COR (95%CI)
AOR (95%CI)
P-value
Yes No
Age of respondents <30
 30–39
 40–49
 >50

49
149
95
56

179
437
182
103

1
1.25(0.86–1.79)
1.91(1.27–2.85)
1.98(1.26–3.13)

1
1.05(0.66–1.70)
1.82(1.01–3.25)
1.21(0.63–2.33)

.816
.043
.557
Area of residents Rural
 Urban

259
90

591
310

1
1.51(1.14–1.99)

1
4.09(2.53–6.62)

.001
Educational status of HH
 No formal education
 Primary
 Secondary and above

191
54
104

377
259
265

1.29(0.97–1.72)
0.53(0.36–0.77)
1

0.85(0.53–1.32)
0.62(0.36–1.05)
1

.519
.077
Housewife education
 No formal education
 Primary
 Secondary and above

270
29
50

581
117
203

1
0.53(0.34–0.82)
0.53(0.37–0.75)

1
0.92(0.52–1.59)
0.73(0.42–1.28)

.742
.278
Occupational of HH head Daily laborer
 Gov’t Employee
 Farmer
 Merchant

13
55
263
18

55
98
636
118

1.47(0.67–3.22)
3.49(1.92–6.35)
2.57(1.53–4.32)
1

6.0(2.16–16.68)
9.0(4.22–20.02)
3.6(1.89–6.88)
1

.001
.001
.001
LLINs expire in 6 moths
 Yes
 No

31
318

178
723

1
2.52(1.68–3.78)

1
3.75(2.31–6.09)

.001
Heard about malaria
 Yes
 No

339
10

862
39

1
0.65(0.32–1.32)

1
0.45(0.19–1.29)

.066
Malaria transmission
 Mosquito bite
 Another mode

341
844

8
57

2.88(1.36–6.10)
1

2.46(1.01–5.98)

.048
Had information on LLINs
 Yes
 No

336
891

13
10

0.29(0.12–0.66)
1

0.49(0.19–1.28)
1

.149
Sleeping room
 Less than two
 Two & above

65
284

205
696

1
1.28(0.94–1.76)

1
0.46(0.23–0.88)

.021
Type of sleeping bed
 Foam Mattress
 Grass mattress

293
353

56
548

8.12(5.92–11.36)
1

17.4(11.74–26.03)
1

0.001
Shape preferred
 Rectangular
 Conical
 Others

65
259
25

210
569
122

1.50(0.91–2.52)
2.22(1.41–3.500
1

0.000
2.36(1.33–4.18)
1

.003

Discussion

This study has identified that the proportion of households that own LLINs is very high however the utilization was very low. It is also identified that age, occupation, perception of LLINs expiry date, shape of LLINs are among the factors that are associated with the utilization of LLINs. Ethiopian Federal Ministry of Health works substantially to increase ownership of LLINs in each malaria-endemic areas, but, many barriers have been indicated in terms of proper utilization of LLINs. In this study, there was a high LLIN coverage (99.5%). Even though almost all households received LLINs during the campaign, only 27.1% of them were seen to have hung during the study. This study finding in line with those conducted in Southwest, Ethiopia. However, LLIN utilization in this study was higher than in a study conducted in other parts of Ethiopia [1315]. The possible explanation is to meet the target of universal access, WHO recommends that one LLIN be distributed to at least every two people at risk for malaria [16].

The benefits of LLIN use were recognized mainly as malaria prevention. In this study, all visited households owned at least one LLIN. However, out of the 1250 households that owned LLINs, 27.1% (349) had slept under the prior night. This study finding is lower than utilization by people living in malaria-endemic areas in Africa and the overall bed net utilization in Ethiopia [1618]. Most households were using LLINs for unintended purposes like rapping over mattresses to protect from bugs, for grain carrying, spreading grains in the sunshine, using them as curtains, and other similar purposes were observed during this study. The basic reason for low utilization could be due to low awareness of consistent use of LLINs considering malaria transmission is mainly during rainy season. Additionally; there is a perception that LLIN itself will expire after six months of distribution and expectation for the new LLIN supply every year.

Age was significantly associated with LLIN usage, where households headed by those aged 40 to 49 years were the highest of other age groups having slept under LLINs during the night preceding the survey. This is in line with the findings of several previous studies elsewhere [14,17,18] and is in accordance to similar study in Southwest Ethiopia [14]. This could be due the fact that older adults may have a higher awareness of their health needs and family responsibility.

Our findings indicate that LLINs use was higher among urban dwellers. This finding is similar with the study in Ethiopia [19] where the same higher use of LLIN in urban areas was reported. The possible reasons might be due to increased education, potentially larger and more diverse social networks perhaps due to greater population density or a more progressive attitude among urban dwellers leading to earlier adoption with strategies. Our results also identified that the odds of using LLINs among government employee were 9 folds higher than households with other occupation groups. The possible explanation may be individuals with government or private employee had more awareness from different sources on the risk of malaria, mode of transmission and preventive measures, thus they are more likely to sleep under a net than other individuals [14].

There is still a misconception regarding awareness about causes and transmission of malaria in this community. Accordingly, the odds of using LLINs among respondents who said malaria transmitted through mosquito bite was 2.46 times higher than those who reported other modes of transmission. Other study conducted in Ethiopia revealed that the role of mosquitoes in malaria transmission was recognized only by 67% of respondents [14]. The possible reasons might be due to low educational level, less exposure or access to health information. Universal access to LLINs is best achieved by free mass distribution campaigns every 3 years or less [16]. The present study found that households that did not perceive LLINs expired within 6 months were less like to use the LLIN, which is concordant with the finding of the study in Northwest Ethiopia [20]. The possible explanations might be less awareness of users as the chemical impregnation of nets no is longer functional after six months.

Households with number of room or separate sleeping beds greater than two and above were less likely to utilize LLINs than those with number of beds or separate sleeping space of one room. The study from Nigeria and Easter Rwanda was in agreement with this study [13,21], but a study conducted in Kersa and Gamo Gofa Zone, Ethiopia were contrary to our result [15,22]. On the other hand, similar to this study, family size was also an important predictor for LLIN use in Southwest Ethiopia where households with a family size one to three were 1.7 times more likely to use LLINs than those with seven or more [14]. The reason for this could be increased space and sleeping rooms, makes it harder even though they have an adequate number of LLINs for the size of the family.

The shape of LLINs had a considerable influence on utilization. In this study, conical shaped LLINs were significantly associated with LLINs usage. In a similar way, in a study conducted in Limmu Seka District of Oromia Region of Ethiopia, conical LLINs were more likely have been used the previous night when compared with rectangular shape [14]. Being rectangular in shape, it is possible that there were difficulties in hanging the LLINs in the circle-shaped huts, which may discourage their use and that have been reported as factors affecting the use of bed nets elsewhere [20,23]. In our justification, the preference might be due to the fact that conical LLINs use a single point for hanging. Additionally, Health extension workers in our study suggested that greater persistent utilization of LLINs may be achieved through wider distribution of circular or conical nets instead of rectangular nets, that might be due to rectangular shape is difficult to hang.

Similarly, type of sleeping bed was one of the factors associated with bed net utilization in this study. Using Foam mattress for sleeping on bed was significantly associated with LLIN usage than households using grass mattress in our study. The finding is slightly in line with a study reported from Kenya that sleeping on the floor decreases net utilization [24]. Similar study also revealed that, the net use of residents who slept on beds in bedrooms was greater than that in the other arrangements and the net use of residents on beds in non-bed rooms was greater than that of those without beds in non-bedrooms [25]. The possible reason might be that those who had foam mattress on their bed helps to tucking the nets over their bed and make them comfortable to use. Additionally, grass mattress mostly used without bed or on the floor out of bed rooms which might make it to use LLIN on such sleeping areas.

Despite the significant contribution of the findings, the limitations of this study include the very nature of the design which makes it hard to establish the temporal relationship between the factors and LLIN utilization. Secondly, since this is based on the report of the respondents, there is a possibility of recall bias and social desirability bias regarding the utilization of the LLINs. Additionally, other multiple factors and the interrelationship between these factors might affect LLINs utilization and this in turn might introduced a classification bias. Also, the findings should be interpreted by taking into consideration that the study did not assess the prior level of community’s exposure to Social and Behaviour Change programs.

Conclusions

This study identified that Long Lasting Insecticidal Net coverage was high, but the actual utilization was low. Age of respondents, residence, occupational status head of household, misperception of LLINs expiry date, awareness on mode of malaria transmission, number of sleeping room, shape preference of LLINs, type of sleeping mattress were identified as associated factors with LLINs utilization.

This finding will provide some insight on factors that should be taken into consideration during the promotion of utilization of LLINs through health education, mass media campaigns and continuous follow-up. It might be hard to generalize this finding to external population as this is one of the areas selected for malaria elimination with a number of interventions.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Public health Department of SPHMMC and CDC Ethiopia, the Oromia Regional health bureau, the Arsi zone health office, all respected district health offices, all data collectors, supervisors, and study participants.

Abbreviations

CDC

Center For Disease Control

DHS

Demographic Health Survey

FMOH

Federal Ministry Of Health

GTS

Global Technical Strategy

HHs

House Holds

IRS

Indoor Residual Spray

ITNs

Insecticide Treated Nets

LLINs

Long Lasting Insecticide Nets

MIS

Malaria Indicator Survey

NMSP

National Malaria Strategic Plan

RBM

Roll Back Malaria

SPHMMC

Saint Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College

SPSS

Statistical Package For Social Science

UNICEF

United Nations Children’s Fund

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

Full data is available on figshare:DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.24189888.

Funding Statement

OYH received the award from CDC Ethiopia under The President's Malaria Initiative (PMI) No: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization, Global Malaria Programme. A framework for malaria elimination. Geneva: 2017. CIP data are available at http://apps.who.int/iris. [Internet]. Geneva World Health Organization. 2017. 22–31 p. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/254761/9789241511988-eng.pdf?sequence=1. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.WHO. Guidelines for malaria hosted on the MAGICapp online platform: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/4807, Geneva: 2021. Lett Appl Microbiol [Internet]. 2021; Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/guidelines-for-malaria. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.WHO. World malaria report. Geneva: 2019. CIP data are available at http://apps.who.int/iris. [Internet]. WHO Regional Office for Africa. 2019. xxxix, 185 p. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Amenya J, Id M, Aduda DSO, Omondi AB, Onono A. Patient-level cost of home- and facility-based child pneumonia treatment in Suba Sub County, Kenya. 2019;25:1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Esayas E, Tufa A, Massebo F, Ahemed A, Ibrahim I, Dillu D, et al. Malaria epidemiology and stratification of incidence in the malaria elimination setting in Harari Region, Eastern Ethiopia. Infect Dis Poverty [Internet]. 2020;9(1):1–12. Available from: 10.1186/s40249-020-00773-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.FMOH. National Malaria Guidelines, Fourth edition. Natl Malar Giuideline. 2017;3rd(November):1–108. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.FMOH. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health National Malaria Elimination Roadmap in Ethiopia. 2015;6(1).
  • 8.MOH. Ethiopia malaria elimination strategic plan: 2021–2025. 2021;(August 2020):2021–5.
  • 9.Batisso E, Habte T, Tesfaye G, Getachew D, Tekalegne A, Kilian A, et al. A stitch in time: A cross-sectional survey looking at long lasting insecticide-treated bed net ownership, utilization and attrition in SNNPR, Ethiopia. Malar J. 2012;11:1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.FMOH. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry Of Health, National Malaria Guidelines, 3ird Edition, January 2012, Addis Ababa Ethiopia. (January):54–7.
  • 11.World Health Organization Global Malaria Programme. Achieving and maintaining universal coverage with long-lasting insecticidal nets for malaria control. Who [Internet]. 2017;(December):4. Available from: http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/atoz/who_recommendation_coverage_llin/en/.
  • 12.World Health Organization. Guidelines for monitoring the durability of long-lasting insecticidal mosquito nets under operational conditions.2011. available at https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/44610.
  • 13.Aderibigbe SA, Olatona FA, Sogunro O, Alawode G, Babatunde OA, Onipe AI, et al. Ownership and utilisation of long lasting insecticide treated nets following free distribution campaign in South West Nigeria. Pan Afr Med J. 2014;17:1–6. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2014.17.263.3927 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hambisa MT, Debela T, Dessie Y, Gobena T. Long lasting insecticidal net use and its associated factors in Limmu Seka District, South West Ethiopia. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5022-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gobena T, Berhane Y, Worku A. Low long-lasting insecticide nets (LLINs) use among household members for protection against mosquito bite in kersa, Eastern Ethiopia. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2012;12(1):1. Available from: BMC Public Health. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-914 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.WHO. Training Module on Malaria elimination. World Heal Organ. 2018;28(5):3. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Watiro AH, Awoke W. Insecticide-treated net ownership and utilization and factors that influence their use in Itang, Gambella region, Ethiopia: Cross-sectional study. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2016;9:101–12. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S104311 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zerdo Z, Bastiaens H, Anthierens S, Massebo F, Masne M, Biresaw G, et al. Long-lasting insecticide-treated bed net ownership, utilization and associated factors among school-age children in Dara Mallo and Uba Debretsehay districts, Southern Ethiopia. Malar J [Internet]. 2020;19(1):1–13. Available from: 10.1186/s12936-020-03437-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Graves PM, Ngondi JM, Hwang J, Getachew A, Gebre T, Mosher AW, et al. Factors associated with mosquito net use by individuals in households owning nets in Ethiopia. Malar J. 2011;10:1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Malede A, Aemero M, Gari SR, Kloos H, Alemu K. Barriers of persistent long-lasting insecticidal nets utilization in villages around Lake Tana, Northwest Ethiopia: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kateera F, Ingabire CM, Hakizimana E, Rulisa A, Karinda P, Grobusch MP, et al. Long-lasting insecticidal net source, ownership and use in the context of universal coverage: A household survey in eastern Rwanda. Malar J. 2015;14(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12936-015-0915-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Admasie A, Zemba A, Paulos W. Insecticide-Treated Nets Utilization and Associated Factors among under-5 Years Old Children in Mirab-Abaya District, Gamo-Gofa Zone, Ethiopia. Front Public Heal. 2018;6(February):1–7. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Al-Eryani SMA, Mahdy MAK, Al-Mekhlafi AM, Abdul-Ghani R. Access to and use of long-lasting insecticidal nets and factors associated with non-use among communities in malaria-endemic areas of Al Hudaydah governorate in the Tihama region, west of Yemen. Malar J. 2017;16(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Minakawa N, Kongere JO, Dida GO, Ikeda E, Hu J, Minagawa K, et al. Sleeping on the floor decreases insecticide treated bed net use and increases risk of malaria in children under 5 years of age in Mbita District, Kenya. Parasitology. 2015;142(12):1516–22. doi: 10.1017/S0031182015000955 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Iwashita H, Dida G, Futami K, Sonye G, Kaneko S, Horio M, et al. Sleeping arrangement and house structure affect bed net use in villages along Lake Victoria. Malar J. 2010;9(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-9-176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Bosco Bekiita Agaba

23 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-19534Assessment of Long-Lasting Insecticide Nets Coverage, Utilization, And Associated Factors Among Households in Malaria Elimination Districts of Arsi Zone, Oromia Region, EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hailu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 07 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bosco Bekiita Agaba, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 2

Abstract and the background chapter are well written. A Few comments on the methods;

Methods:

”……. The sample size was calculated by using single population proportion formula using proportion of LLINs utilization of 61.6% from similar study” … Please include this refence

“A structured questionnaire was administered to identify socio-demographic, LLINs availability and status, LLIN use, and observation was made to inspection condition and handling of the LLINs” there are multiple factors that can potentially affect LLINs utilization, did this tool capture exhaustively capture all these factors/variables? Would it be good idea to indicate how this could have affected your stud and if possible discuss this as a limitation?

“A binary logistic regression analysis was used to examine the determinants of LLIN utilization

and variables with a p-value below 0.2 during bivariate analysis was entered into the

multivariable logistic regression model” ……. Why was this cutoff set at 0.2? doesn’t setting a much “relaxed”/ less stringent cut off at variable selection potentially retain many unnecessary variables progressing to the final models which essentially could have been dropped

Results

“The median age of the respondent was 37.8 years…” Whats the age mostly affected by malaria in Ethiopia? Is it the under 5?

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a cross-sectional study on the coverage and utilization of LLINs in a community in Ethiopia. The study reports that although the coverage with LLINs was high, the rate of net utilization was poor. Low utilization was associated with the rural, uneducated households with a lack of awareness and having misconceptions about malaria. Other factors that influenced the rate of utilization included age, the shape of the net, type of beds, housing conditions, employment of the head of house-hold.

The main weakness of this manuscript I that it does not mention the previous exposure of this population to Social and Behaviour Change (SBC) which is generally recommended to be launched with LLINs campaigns. It is interesting to note that Table 3 shows that people who had information about malaria were not better than those who didn’t. This means that if there were SBC programmes, they were not effective. It is important to know about SBC exposure because the conclusion of this study is that this population needs health education. Any future SBC should be evidence-based and could benefit form the findings of this study.

Minor revisions:

(1) There is confusion in using the term “employee” in Table 3 and in the text. Do you mean government employee?

(2) It is contradictory when you attribute the better awareness of employees to better education and at the same time the data do not show correlation with the level of education, clarify this.

(3) Page 8 Paragraph3: households those = households that

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Ahmed Adeel

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 2;18(11):e0293728. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293728.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Sep 2023

We appreciate the editor and reviewers’ comments. The following are our point-by-point responses:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: Thank you for your comments. This is well received and amended accordingly.

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Response: Thank you. We will upload it to public repository recommended by PLOS ONE upon acceptance of the manuscript.

3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We took all the images during our data collection to indicate the inappropriate use of LLINs and the images are taken solely by the authors. However, we removed the images that contain (for example the name of the bed net production or distribution company or image that has similarity with possible items on the internet). However, if the editors/reviewers recommend taking out the images regardless, we are happy to incorporate your suggestions.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We have addressed some typos in the reference list and this is indicated in the manuscript accordingly.

Reviewer 2

Comment: Abstract and the background chapter are well written. A Few comments on the methods;

Methods: ”……. The sample size was calculated by using single population proportion formula using proportion of LLINs utilization of 61.6% from similar study” … Please include this refence

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We really appreciate it.The reference is included in the manuscript accordingly and we would also like to apologize and indicate that there is a typo here as the sample size should be 60.6% not 61.6%. Therefore we updated it and included the reference: ‘’ The sample size was calculated by using single population proportion formula using proportion of LLINs utilization of 60.6% from similar study (9).’’

Comment: “A structured questionnaire was administered to identify socio-demographic, LLINs availability and status, LLIN use, and observation was made to inspection condition and handling of the LLINs” there are multiple factors that can potentially affect LLINs utilization, did this tool capture exhaustively capture all these factors/variables? Would it be good idea to indicate how this could have affected your stud and if possible discuss this as a limitation?

Response: We would like to thank the reviewers for the comment. We have tried to assess the socio-demographic, LLINs availability and status factors that can potentially affect LLINs utilization. However, we agree with the reviewer that there would be more known and unkown factors and interrelation between the factors might affect the LLINs utilization resulting in a bias. Therefore, the comment is well received and included in the limitation section.

Comment: “A binary logistic regression analysis was used to examine the determinants of LLIN utilization and variables with a p-value below 0.2 during bivariate analysis was entered into the multivariable logistic regression model” ……. Why was this cutoff set at 0.2? doesn’t setting a much “relaxed”/ less stringent cut off at variable selection potentially retain many unnecessary variables progressing to the final models which essentially could have been dropped

Response: Thank you for the comment. The reason we chose this cut off point is based on (Maldonado and Greenland, 1993) which is recommended to be a reasonable cut off point to rule out confounders more effectively and retain relevant variables for a final model. We have also observed this being used by similar researchers as rule of thumb.

Comment: Results “The median age of the respondent was 37.8 years…” Whats the age mostly affected by malaria in Ethiopia? Is it the under 5?

Response: Thank you for your feedback. The reported age is the median age of the survey respondents or head of the household. As you mentioned, according to the recent systematic review and meta-analysis ( Biset, G., Tadess, A.W., Tegegne, K.D. et al., 2022), the highest malaria-related morbidity and mortality in Ethiopia is reported among children under 5 years. However, in our study we have assessed if children are given priority to sleep under LLINs and found only very few (10.8%) households give priority for children.

Reviewer 1

The main weakness of this manuscript I that it does not mention the previous exposure of this population to Social and Behaviour Change (SBC) which is generally recommended to be launched with LLINs campaigns. It is interesting to note that Table 3 shows that people who had information about malaria were not better than those who didn’t. This means that if there were SBC programmes, they were not effective. It is important to know about SBC exposure because the conclusion of this study is that this population needs health education. Any future SBC should be evidence-based and could benefit form the findings of this study.

Response: Thank you so much. We really appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We agree that it would be great if we have assessed the exposure of the population to Social and Behaviour Change programs. Therefore, we included this in the limitation section of the manuscript as follows: ‘’Also, the findings should be interpreted by taking into consideration that the study did not assess the prior level of community’s exposure to Social and Behaviour Change programs.’’

Comment: Minor revisions: (1) There is confusion in using the term “employee” in Table 3 and in the text. Do you mean government employee?

Response: Thank you. This is well received and amended in the manuscript as ‘government employee’

Comment: (2) It is contradictory when you attribute the better awareness of employees to better education and at the same time the data do not show correlation with the level of education, clarify this.

Response: Thank you and sorry for the confusion here. We wanted to explain that the possible reason is that employees might have an exposure to information about LLIN and malaria and this is clarified in the manuscript accordingly.

Comment: (3) Page 8 Paragraph3: households those = households that

Response: Thank you very much. Comment well received and addressed.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Bosco Bekiita Agaba

18 Oct 2023

Assessment of Long-Lasting Insecticide Nets Coverage, Utilization, And Associated Factors Among Households in Malaria Elimination Districts of Arsi Zone, Oromia Region, Ethiopia

PONE-D-23-19534R1

Dear Dr. Hailu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Bosco Bekiita Agaba, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Bosco Bekiita Agaba

23 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-19534R1

Assessment of Long-Lasting Insecticide Nets Coverage, Utilization, And Associated Factors Among Households in Malaria Elimination Districts of Arsi Zone, Oromia Region, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Hailu:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Bosco Bekiita Agaba

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Full data is available on figshare:DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.24189888.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES