Table 1.
Overview of the drug coverage surveys: 2000–2011*
| Country, years | Targeted disease | Reported coverage | Surveyed coverage | Other variables |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haiti 2000†9 | Lymphatic filariasis | 98.7% | 71.3% (66.7–75.9%) | LF KAP, reasons for non-compliance, drug adverse events, morbidity prevalence |
| Haiti 2002‡ | Lymphatic filariasis | 86.6% | 78.5% (74.4–82.6) | LF KAP, participation in previous MDAs, reasons for non-compliance, drug adverse events |
| Haiti 2003 | ||||
| Verretes | Lymphatic filariasis, Soil-transmitted helminthiasis | 97.5% | 66.6% (57.1–76.0%) | LF KAP, reasons for non-compliance, drug adverse events, morbidity prevalence |
| Saut d'eau | 102.7% | 89.5% (86.6–92.3%) | ||
| Port de Paix | 83.7% | 75.3% (69.0–81.6%) | ||
| Milot (4 communes) | 79.1% | 80.5% (75.7–85.2%) | ||
| Characol | 159.7% | 87.6% (83.6–91.6%) | ||
| Nigeria 200310 | ||||
| Nasarawa and Plateau State | Lymphatic filariasis, Onchocerciasis | 84.6% | 62.7% (51.6–73.8%) | LF KAP, MDA feedback, morbidity prevalence, reason for non-compliance, school-attendance |
| Nasarawa and Plateau State | Lymphatic filariasis | 74.3% | 71.6% (65.1–78.2%) | |
| Haiti 2004§ | ||||
| Cap Haitian | Lymphatic filariasis | 63.0% | 62.7% (−)‡ | LF KAP, MDA feedback, reasons for non-compliance, drug adverse events |
| Croix des Bouquets | 50.0% | 55.0% (−)‡ | ||
| Togo 200411 | ||||
| Amou | Lymphatic filariasis | 81.4% | 73.3% (61.8–84.8%) | Detailed morbidity prevalence |
| Kozah, Binah, Doufelgou | 86.8% | 77.0% (67.0–87.0%) | ||
| Kpendjal, Tone | 81.5% | 81.0% (77.1–84.8%) | ||
| Nigeria 200512 | Lymphatic filariasis, Onchocerciasis, Malaria | −¶ | 68.0% (64.0–72.0%) | ITN ownership, ITN usage |
| Togo 2007 | Lymphatic filariasis, Onchocerciasis, Soil-transmitted helminthiasis | 84.0% | 82.1% (76.0–88.0%) | LF KAP, reasons for non-compliance, drug adverse events, provision of water and sanitation, ITN ownership, general questions |
| Schistosomiasis | 91% (89.0%–93.0%) (5–15 yrs) 94% (92.0%–96.0%) (whole population) | |||
| Bangladesh 2009 | ||||
| Munshigani | Soil-transmitted helminthiasis | 70.7% | 54.3% (44.8–63.8%) | STH KAP, school enrollment, water, sanitation and hygiene, MDA knowledge |
| Lakshmipur | 97.4% | 68.3% (60.1–76.4%) | ||
| Cambodia 200913 | Soil-transmitted helminthiasis | 97.8% | 80.9% (69.1–92.6%) | STH KAP, school enrollment, water, sanitation and hygiene, MDA knowledge, deworming intake in other settings |
| Haiti 2009∥ | ||||
| Acul du Nord/Bas-Limbe | Lymphatic filariasis, Soil-transmitted helminthiasis | 96.0% | 69.0% (62.0–77.0%) | NTD KAP, ITN coverage, morbidity prevalence, MDA feedback and cost, reasons for non-compliance, drug adverse events |
| Limbe | 94.0% | 89.0% (89.0–90.0%) | ||
| Grand Riviere du Nord | 171.0% | 77.0% (70.0–84.0%) | ||
| Croix des bouquets | 90.0% | 47.0% (42.0–50.0%) | ||
| Cabaret | 92.0% | 63.0% (50.0–70.0%) | ||
| Saint Louis du Nord | 103.0% | 77.0% (69.0–85.0%) | ||
| Bassin Bleu | 70.0% | 76.0% (71.0–81.0%) | ||
| Gros-Morne | 90.0% | 77.0% (71.0–82.0%) | ||
| Petite Riviere de l'Artibonite | 97.0% | 77.0% (70.0–84.0%) | ||
| Saint Marc | 112.2% | 78.0% (70.0–85.0%) | ||
| Malawi 2010** | Lymphatic filariasis | 80.0% | 66.8% (60.3–73.4%) | Coverage during 2 consecutive years, reasons for non-compliance |
| Mali 2011** | Lymphatic filariasis, | 87.0% | 62.0% (53.9–70.1%) | – |
| Schistosomiasis | 90.0% | 57.2% (49.1–65.4%) | – | |
| Cameroon 2011 | Lymphatic filariasis, | 80.3% | 76.9% (72.0–81.9%) | NTD KAP, morbidity prevalence, MDA feedback, reasons for non-compliance, drug adverse events |
| Trachoma, | 93.0% | 86.8% (80.9–92.7%) | ||
| Schistosomiasis | – | 39.8% (30.7–49.1%) | ||
*
NTD = neglected tropical diseases; MDA = mass drug administration; KAP = knowledge, attitudes, and practice; ITN = insecticide-treated nets.
†
Selection of the households was done by segmenting.
‡
Clusters were randomly selected around 40 distribution posts (Direny unpublished data).
§
A KAP survey was administered to one household resident > 14 years of age. Reported coverage is based on the total population, whereas surveyed coverage is based on adults > 14 years of age.
¶
Coverage data was collected at the sub-district level. Reported coverage was not available at this level.
∥
Villages were selected by random sampling, results were weighted (Philius unpublished data).
**
Woodhall unpublished data.
–
Data unknown.