Skip to main content
. 2022 Mar 24;21:101. doi: 10.1186/s12936-022-04126-5

Table 3.

Percentage distribution of FGDs participants that inspected WHO “too torn” nets and their decision to keep or discard the nets

Variables WHO too torn condition n (%) Discard n (%)
Covariates Good* Damaged Too torn Yes No
Age group
 40–60 185 (41) 72 (16) 191 (43) 192 (43) 256 (57)
 18–39 123 (33) 30 (8) 218 (59) 245 (66) 126 (34)
Gender
 Men 90 (27) 26 (8) 220 (65) 240 (71) 96 (29)
 Women 218 (45) 76 (16) 189 (39) 197 (41) 286 (59)
Household size
 1–5 residents 190 (38) 67 (14) 240 (48) 250 (50) 247 (50)
 6 and above residents 118 (37) 35 (11) 169 (53) 187 (58) 135 (42)
Education
 No formal education 64 (57) 15 (13) 33 (30) 38 (34) 74 (66)
 Formal education 244 (35) 87 (12) 376 (53) 399 (56) 308 (44)
Household SES
 Lowest 115 (44) 37 (14) 107 (41) 109 (42) 150 (58)
 Middle 105 (41) 36 (13) 118 (46) 125 (48) 134 (52)
 Highest 71 (27) 24 (9) 171 (64) 188 (71) 78 (29)
Study villages
 Kiwangwa 57 (27) 51 (24) 102 (49) 120 (57) 90 (43)
 Bago 103 (49) 21 (10) 86 (41) 92 (44) 118 (56)
 Msinune 95 (43) 12 (5) 117 (52) 121 (54) 103 (46)
 Mwavi 53 (31) 18 (10) 104 (59) 104 (59) 71 (41)
 Total 308 (38) 102 (12) 409 (50) 437 (53) 382 (47)

* Bed net of a total hole surface area of < 0.001m2 (pHI < 64)

Bed net of a total surface, ≤ 0.1m2 (pHI ≤ 642)

Bed net of a total surface area of > 0.1 m 2(pHI > 642)