Table 5.
Predictors of net use by individuals in households that owned at least one net
| Highlands | Lowlands | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total, n | Used a net last night, n (%) | OR (95% CI) | Total, n | Used a net last night, n (%) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Total number of people | 1,630 | 1,273 (78.1%) | 1,469 | 1,404 (95.6%) | ||
| Demographics | ||||||
| Age category (years) | ||||||
| < 5 | 250 | 219 (87.6%) | 1.00 (ref) | 232 | 226 (97.4%) | 1.00 (ref) |
| 5–15 | 625 | 408 (65.3%) | 0.27 (0.18–0.40) | 491 | 451 (91.9%) | 0.30 (0.13–0.72) |
| > 15–30 | 286 | 216 (75.5%) | 0.44 (0.28–0.69) | 337 | 325 (96.4%) | 0.72 (0.27–1.94) |
| > 30–60 | 362 | 332 (91.7%) | 1.57 (0.92–2.66) | 305 | 299 (98.0%) | 1.32 (0.42–4.16) |
| > 60 | 106 | 98 (92.5%) | 1.73 (0.77–3.91) | 96 | 96 (100.0%) | ∞* |
| Gender | ||||||
| Female | 971 | 805 (82.9%) | 1.98 (1.56–2.51) | 870 | 847 (97.4%) | 2.78 (1.65–4.67) |
| Male | 656 | 466 (71.0%) | 1.00 (ref) | 599 | 557 (93.0%) | 1.00 (ref) |
| Relationship to head of household | ||||||
| Nuclear family (self/spouse and child) | 1,277 | 1,055 (82.6%) | 4.75 (2.89–7.81) | 1,236 | 1,201 (97.2%) | 4.16 (1.40–12.38) |
| Aunt/uncle/niece/nephew | 68 | 34 (50.0%) | 1.00 (ref) | 37 | 33 (89.2%) | 1.00 (ref) |
| Other | 285 | 184 (64.6%) | 1.82 (1.07–3.11) | 195 | 170 (87.2%) | 0.82 (0.27–2.52) |
| Sleep structure used | ||||||
| Main house | 1,422 | 1,159 (81.5%) | 3.63 (2.68–4.93) | 1,332 | 54 (95.9%) | 1.88 (0.93–3.78) |
| Other | 208 | 114 (54.8%) | 1.00 (ref) | 136 | 126 (92.6%) | 1.00 (ref) |
| Bed net use | ||||||
| Household net access† | ||||||
| Insufficient number of nets | 959 | 635 (66.2%) | 1.00 (ref) | 607 | 556 (91.6%) | 1.00 (ref) |
| Sufficient number of nets | 671 | 638 (95.1%) | 9.86 (6.78–14.35) | 862 | 848 (98.4%) | 5.56 (3.05–10.13) |
| Any problem hanging a net over their sleep space? | ||||||
| No | 1,533 | 1,190 (77.6%) | 1.00 (ref) | 1,382 | 1,339 (96.9%) | 1.0 (ref) |
| Yes | 94 | 83 (88.3%) | 2.17 (1.15–4.13) | 81 | 61 (75.3%) | 0.10 (0.05–0.18) |
| What are the problems faced when hanging a net over their sleep space? | ||||||
| No place to hang | 32 | 29 (90.6%) | 24 | 24 (100.0%) | ||
| Net too short | 1 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | – | ||
| No bed | 36 | 36 (100.0%) | 7 | 7 (100.0%) | ||
| Net too small | 1 | 1 (100.0%) | 7 | 7 (100.0%) | ||
| Too hot | 12 | 8 (66.7%) | 2 | 2 (100.0%) | ||
| Too dirty | 0 | – | 1 | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| Not enough nets | 1 | 0 (0.0%) | 19 | 2 (10.5%) | ||
| Other | 6 | 3 (50.0%) | 11 | 11 (100.0) | ||
| Malaria variables | ||||||
| Diagnosed with malaria in past year? | ||||||
| No | 647 | 486 (75.1%) | 1.00 (ref) | 566 | 541 (95.6%) | 1.00 (ref) |
| Yes | 982 | 786 (80.0%) | 1.33 (1.05–1.68) | 897 | 858 (95.7%) | 1.02 (0.61–1.70) |
| When was the last malaria diagnosis? | ||||||
| Within last month | 267 | 228 (85.4%) | 2.21 (1.36–3.58) | 350 | 330 (94.3%) | 0.17 (0.02–1.27) |
| 1–3 months ago | 322 | 262 (81.4%) | 1.65 (1.06–2.57) | 342 | 324 (94.7%) | 0.18 (0.02–1.39) |
| 4–6 months ago | 226 | 174 (77.0%) | 1.27 (0.80–2.01) | 106 | 105 (99.1%) | 1.07 (0.07–17.37) |
| 7 months–1 year ago | 164 | 119 (72.6%) | 1.00 (ref) | 99 | 98 (99.0%) | 1.00 (ref) |
| Household perception of malaria risk‡ | ||||||
| Low | 449 | 320 (71.3%) | 1.00 (ref) | 166 | 155 (93.4%) | 1.00 (ref) |
| Moderate | 983 | 804 (81.8%) | 1.71 (1.40–2.35) | 563 | 526 (93.4%) | 1.01 (0.50–2.02) |
| High | 173 | 130 (75.1%) | 1.22 (0.82–1.82) | 734 | 717 (97.7%) | 2.99 (1.38–6.52) |
OR = odds ratio. Bolded values were statistically significant at P < 0.05.
* CI not calculated as all individuals in the age category used a net on the previous night in the lowlands.
† Sufficient household net access was defined as having at least one bed net for every two household members. Insufficient access was defined as having at least one net but less than one for every two household members.
‡ The respondent to the household questionnaire (typically the female head of household) was asked to rank malaria both as a problem for their family and for their community on a scale of 1–5 (with 1 being “not at all serious” and 5 being “extremely serious”). The sum of the two values was then categorized as “low” (sum 2–4), “moderate” (sum 5–7), or “high” (sum 8–10) perceived severity.