Multi-country comparison of delivery strategies for mass campaigns to achieve universal coverage with insecticide-treated nets: what works best?

Table 3 Multi-variable logistic regression models of determinants of household registration, ownership of at least one ITN from the campaign, and having at least one ITN per two people (N = 13,901)

Factors of association^a	Adjusted OR	95 % CI	P value
Outcome: Household registered by campaign
Household of four people or more (vs three or less)	1.74	1.47–2.07	<0.001
Household with any child under five (vs no child under five)	1.37	1.20–1.58	<0.001
Household in urban area (vs. rural)	0.73	0.58–0.92	0.008
Poorest households (quintile 1 vs 2–5)	0.90	0.76–1.06	0.200
House-to-house delivery (vs fixed point)	0.73	0.48–1.12	0.149
UC allocation (vs fixed allocation)	0.76	0.54–1.07	0.112
Outcome: Household received any net from campaign
Registered by campaign	74.79	55.34–101.05	<0.001
Household of four people or more (vs three or less)	1.28	1.06–1.55	0.010
Household with any child under five (vs no child under five)	0.76	0.64–0.89	0.001
Household in urban area (vs rural)	0.60	0.44–0.80	0.001
Outcome: Household has one ITN per two persons (sufficient ITNs)
Registered by campaign	19.09	14.31–19.50	<0.001
Household of four people or more (vs three or less)	0.16	0.14–0.20	<0.001
Household with any child under five (vs no child under five)	0.62	0.55–0.69	<0.001
Household in urban area (vs rural)	0.74	0.63–0.87	<0.001

CI confidence interval, ITN insecticide-treated net, OR odds ratio
^aAll models included the survey to reflect the structure of the data (results not shown)

ISSN: 1475-2875