Skip to main content

Table 4 Among countries with over 10% purchased nets: factors associated with a purchased net being used the previous night

From: Who buys nets? Factors associated with ownership and use of purchased mosquito nets in sub-Saharan Africa

Country/data sourceAngola 2015–2016 DHSMadagascar 2016 MISMalawi 2017 MISMali 2015 MISTanzania 2017 MISUganda 2016 DHSZimbabwe 2015 DHS
Adjusted odds of a purchased net being used the previous night: aORa (95% CI)
 Gender of head of household (ref: male)
  Female0.8 (0.5,1.2)1.7 (1.0,2.9)1.1 (0.8,1.5)n/aa1.14 (0.8,1.7)1.12 (0.8,1.5)1.1 (0.8,1.5)
 Age of head of household in years (ref: < 35)
  35–591.1 (0.7,1.6)1.3 (0.8,2.1)0.9 (0.7,1.3)0.7 (0.1,3.6)1.0 (0.7,1.3)1.1 (0.9,1.5)1.4 (1.0,2.0)
  60+0.8 (0.3,1.7)1.2 (0.5, 2.9)1.4 (0.8,2.5)1.2 (0.2,7.0)0.9 (0.6,1.4)1.2 (0.8,1.8)0.7 (0.4,1.3)
 Education of head of household (ref: none)
  Primary1.0 (0.5,2.0)n/ac1.2 (0.7,2.0)n/acn/ac0.7 (0.4,1.5)1.7 (0.3,8.8)
  ≥ Secondary1.4 (0.7,2.8)n/ac1.2 (0.7,2.0)n/acn/ac0.7 (0.4,1.5)0.8 (0.2,4.5)
 Household net supply (nets/person; ref: some but not enough (< 0.5 net/person))
  Enough (0.5–1 net/person)0.6 (0.4,1.0)0.5 (0.3,0.9)0.7 (0.5,1.1)1.6 (0.7,3.8)0.8 (0.5,1.3)0.5 (0.4,0.8)1.2 (0.7,2.1)
  Too many (> 1 net/person)0.1 (0.0,0.3)0.2 (0.1,0.8)0.2 (0.1,0.4)n/ab0.2 (0.1,0.4)0.1 (0.1,0.2)0.7 (0.2,2.2)
 Insecticide-treatment status of nets (ref: non-ITN)
  ITN1.2 (0.8,1.9)1.4 (0.8,2.3)1.7 (1.3,2.3)1.1 (0.3,3.9)1.2 (0.8,1.9)2.3 (1.5,3.3)1.0 (0.7,1.5)
 Age of the net (ref: ≤ 6 months)
  7–12 months1.4 (0.9,2.2)1.0 (0.5,1.9)0.8 (0.6,1.2)3.9 (1.0,14.8)0.9 (0.6,1.4)1.2 (0.9,1.6)1.0 (0.7,1.6)
  13–242.0 (1.1,3.4)0.7 (0.3,1.5)0.7 (0.5,1.1)3.6 (0.7,17.7)0.9 (0.6,1.5)0.8 (0.6,1.1)0.8 (0.5,1.3)
  ≥ 25 months1.0 (0.6,1.6)0.5 (0.3,0.8)0.7 (0.5,1.1)1.4 (0.5,4.0)0.8 (0.5,1.2)0.6 (0.4,0.9)0.6 (0.4,0.9)
 Presence of public sector net in the household (ref: no)
  Yes0.9 (0.5,1.6)0.8 (0.4,1.5)1.1 (0.8,1.5)0.6 (0.2,2.2)0.8 (0.6,1.1)1.0 (0.7,1.3)0.9 (0.6,1.4)
 Presence of currently/recently pregnant woman (ref: no)
  Yes1.5 (1.0,2.1)1.1 (0.6,1.8)1.0 (0.7,1.5)0.9 (0.3,2.6)1.5 (1.0,2.2)0.8 (0.7,1.1)1.3 (0.9,1.9)
 Presence of a child under 5 years old (ref: no)
  Yes1.0 (0.7,1.4)0.7 (0.4,1.1)0.8 (0.6,1.2)1.0 (0.3,3.5)1.2 (0.9,1.7)1.1 (0.8,1.5)1.0 (0.7,1.5)
 Presence of a school aged child (ref: no)
  Yes0.8 (0.5,1.2)1.1 (0.7,1.7)1.2 (0.9,1.6)2.6 (0.6,10.8)1.4 (0.9,2.2)1.3 (1.1,1.7)0.7 (0.5,1.0)
 Residence (ref: rural)
  Urban1.0 (0.5,2.0)0.7 (0.4,1.4)1.7 (1.3,2.3)0.8 (0.3,1.9)1.4 (1.0,2.1)1.3 (0.9,1.8)1.8 (0.7,4.2)
 Wealth quintile (ref: poorest)
  Poorer2.3 (1.1,4.9)0.9 (0.3,2.4)0.8 (0.3,1.8)3.0 (1.4,6.5)0.7 (0.4,1.3)2.3 (0.5,10.3)
  Middle3.6 (1.4,9.0)1.5 (0.5,4.3)1.3 (0.6,2.9)0.4 (0.1,2.6)2.4 (1.1,5.3)0.5 (0.2,0.9)1.8 (0.4,7.8)
  Richer2.5 (0.9,6.4)1.2 (0.5,3.0)1.1 (0.5,2.2)0.3 (0.1,2.1)3.1 (1.7,5.9)0.5 (0.3,0.8)1.0 (0.2,4.7)
  Richest1.6 (0.6,4.1)1.2 (0.5,3.2)1.0 (0.5,2.1)0.3 (0.1,1.3)2.8 (1.5,5.2)0.5 (0.3,0.9)1.0 (0.2,4.7)
  N of nets from private source2641136441311871263451052415
  1. Italicized values are statistically significant with P < 0.05
  2. CI confidence interval, HH households, ITN insecticide-treated nets, N number, n/a not applicable, aOR adjusted odds ratio, ref reference
  3. aAdjusted for gender, age and education of head of household, household net supply, insecticide treatment status and age of nets, presence of public-sector net in the household, presence of currently/recently pregnant woman, child under 5 years old, or school aged child in the household, residence, wealth quintile and region (shown in Additional file 1: Table S3)
  4. bThe variable was dropped in the logistic regression due to small sample size or there were no observations
  5. cThere was no variable for education level of head of household in the dataset