Maximizing the impact of malaria funding through allocative efficiency: using the right interventions in the right locations

Table 2 Estimated 2015 coverage of malaria interventions by population groups and geopolitical region.

	NW (%)	NC (%)	NE (%)	SW (%)	SE (%)	SS (%)
2015 coverage
IRS	5	1	3	1	7	5
IPTp (among pregnant women)	40	37	50	64	50	47
SMC (among children 0–5 years)	28	0	0	0	0	0
LLIN (among the general population)^a	83	43	68	32	48	52
LLIN (among children 0–5 years)	94	65	82	57	73	71
LLIN (among pregnant women)	94	61	89	64	62	67
BCC [19]^b	35	26	31	44	42	38
Utilization
LLIN (among the general population)^c[19, 23]	66	69	77	58	34	52
LLIN (among children 0–5 years)^d [19]	72	62	63	52	37	49
LLIN (among pregnant women) [19]	66	60	61	39	35	46
IPTp (among pregnant women)^e[19, 39]	39	49	50	30	52	34

^aLLIN coverage defined as the percentage of households with at least one net for every two people [37]
^bDefined as the percentage reporting being exposed to prevention message
^cDefined as the percentage of household members who slept under a mosquito net the previous night divided by the percentage of coverage
^dDefined as the percentage of children under five who slept inside an LLIN last night among children in a household with at least one LLIN. This assumes that where an LLIN is available a child would preferentially use it over other household members
^eDefined as the percentage of pregnant women who had at least three doses of IPTp among those who had at least one