BackgroundInsecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs) have been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality due to malaria in sub-Saharan Africa. Strategies using incentives to increase ITN use could be more efficient than traditional distribution campaigns. To date, behavioural incentives have been studied mostly in developed countries. No study has yet looked at the effect of incentives on the use of ITNs. Reported here are the results of a cluster randomized controlled trial testing household-level incentives for ITN use following a free ITN distribution campaign in Madagascar.MethodsThe study took place from July 2007 until February 2008. Twenty-one villages were randomized to either intervention or control clusters. Households in both clusters received a coupon redeemable for one ITN. After one month, intervention households received a bonus for ITN use, determined by visual confirmation of a mounted ITN. Data were collected at baseline, one month and six months. Both unadjusted and adjusted results, using cluster specific methods, are presented.ResultsAt baseline, 8.5% of households owned an ITN and 6% were observed to have a net mounted over a bed in the household. At one month, there were no differences in ownership between the intervention and control groups (99.5% vs. 99.4%), but net use was substantially higher in the intervention group (99% vs. 78%), with an adjusted risk ratio of 1.24 (95% CI: 1.10 to 1.40; p < 0.001). After six months, net ownership had decreased in the intervention compared to the control group (96.7% vs. 99.7%), with an adjusted risk ratio of 0.97 (p < 0.01). There was no difference between the groups in terms of ITN use at six months; however, intervention households were more likely to use a net that they owned (96% vs. 90%; p < 0.001).ConclusionsHousehold-level incentives have the potential to significantly increase the use of ITNs in target households in the immediate-term, but, over time, the use of ITNs is similar to households that did not receive incentives. Providing incentives for behaviour change is a promising tool that can complement traditional ITN distribution programmes and improve the effectiveness of ITN programmes in protecting vulnerable populations, especially in the short-term.

BackgroundInsecticide-treated bednets (ITNs) are recommended for use by 3.4 billion people at risk of malaria world-wide. Policy makers rely on measurements of ITN use to optimize malaria prevention efforts. Self-reports are the most common means of assessing ITN use, but self-reports may be biased in a way that reduces their reliability as a proxy for ITN adherence. This meta-analysis compared self-reported and two methods which are more objective measures of ITN use to explore whether self-reports overestimate actual ITN adherence.MethodsA comprehensive search of electronic databases and hand searching reference lists resulted in screening 2885 records and 202 articles were read in full. Sixteen articles with comparable data were chosen for the meta-analysis. Comparable data was defined as self-reported and objectively measured ITN use (observation of a mounted ITN or surprise visits confirming use) at the same unit of analysis, covering the same time period and same population. A random effects model was used to determine a weighted average risk difference between self-reported and objectively measured ITN use. Additional stratified analyses were conducted to explore study heterogeneity.ResultsSelf-reported ITN use is 8 percentage points (95% confidence interval CI: 3 to 13) higher than objectively measured ITN use, representing a 13.6% overestimation relative to the proportion measured as adherent to ITN use by objective measures. Wide variations in the discrepancies between self-reports and objective measures were unable to be explained using stratified analyses of variables including location, year of publication, seasonality and others.ConclusionsSelf-reports overestimate ITN adherence relative to objectively measured ITN use by 13.6% and do so in an unpredictable manner that raises questions about the reliability of using self-reported ITN use alone as a surveillance tool and a guide for making policy decisions.

Background Mosquito net use is an essential part of malaria prevention. Although previous research has shown that many people sleep under a mosquito net in endemic areas, it is unknown whether people underestimate how common it is to sleep under a net every night. Furthermore, perceived social norms about whether most others sleep under a mosquito net every night may contribute to personally sleeping under a net, given decades of research showing that people often mimic others’ behaviours. Methods Population-based data were collected from 1669 adults across eight villages in one rural parish in southwestern Uganda. Individuals’ perception about whether most adults in their community sleep under a mosquito net every night was compared with whether daily mosquito net use was the actual norm in their community to identify the extent of norm misperception. The association between whether an individual perceived daily mosquito net use to be the norm and personal mosquito net use was assessed while adjusting for the ratio of nets:people in the household and other factors. Results Although the majority (65%) of participants reported sleeping under a mosquito net every night (and 75% did so among the 86% of people with at least one net), one-quarter of participants thought that most adults in their community did not sleep under a mosquito net every night. Another 8% were unsure how many nights per week most adults in their community sleep under a mosquito net. Participants who perceived that daily mosquito net use was the norm were 2.94 times more likely to report personally sleeping under a mosquito net every night (95% CI 2.09–4.14, p < 0.001) compared to participants who thought doing so was not normative, adjusting for other factors. Conclusions Results suggest an opportunity for anti-malarial interventions to reduce misperceptions about mosquito net use norms and emphasize the commonness of daily mosquito net use in malaria-endemic regions. If people correctly perceive most others to sleep under a net every night, then they may personally do so when possible and support others to do so too.

Indoor residual spraying (IRS) and long-lasting insecticide-treated bednets (LLINs) are common tools for reducing malaria transmission. We studied a cohort in Uganda with universal access to LLINs after 5 years of sustained IRS to explore LLIN adherence when malaria transmission has been greatly reduced. Eighty households and 526 individuals in Nagongera, Uganda were followed from October 2017 –October 2019. Every two weeks, mosquitoes were collected from sleeping rooms and LLIN adherence the prior night assessed. Episodes of malaria were diagnosed using passive surveillance. Risk factors for LLIN non-adherence were evaluated using multi-level mixed logistic regression. An age-matched case-control design was used to measure the association between LLIN non-adherence and malaria. Across all time periods, and particularly in the last 6 months, non-adherence was higher among both children <5 years (OR 3.31, 95% CI: 2.30–4.75; p<0.001) and school-aged children 5–17 years (OR 6.88, 95% CI: 5.01–9.45; p<0.001) compared to adults. In the first 18 months, collection of fewer mosquitoes was associated with non-adherence (OR 3.25, 95% CI: 2.92–3.63; p<0.001), and, in the last 6 months, residents of poorer households were less adherent (OR 5.1, 95% CI: 1.17–22.2; p = 0.03). Any reported non-adherence over the prior two months was associated with a 15-fold increase in the odds of having malaria (OR 15.0, 95% CI: 1.95 to 114.9; p = 0.009). Knowledge about LLIN use was high, and the most frequently reported barriers to use included heat and low perceived risk of malaria. Children, particularly school-aged, participants exposed to fewer mosquitoes, and those from poorer households, were less likely to use LLINs. Non-adherence to LLINs was associated with an increased risk of malaria. Strategies, such as behavior change communications, should be prioritized to ensure consistent LLIN use even when malaria transmission has been greatly reduced.