Skip to main content
Download PDF

Variations in the use of malaria preventive measures among pregnant women in Guinea: a secondary analysis of the 2012 and 2018 demographic and health surveys

Malaria Journal volume 21, Article number: 309 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Despite its effectiveness, the optimal use of the combination of insecticide-treated nets (ITN) and intermittent preventive treatment during pregnancy with sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP) remains low in malaria-endemic areas. Therefore, this study analyzed its variations and predictors in Guinea.

Methods

This study was a secondary analysis of the 2012 and 2018 Guinea Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS). It included women who had given birth 3 years before each DHS, slept on ITN and took at least one dose of SP. Use was complete if a pregnant woman slept on ITNs and took SP (at least two doses in 2012; at least three doses in 2018). Moran indices were used to determine spatial autocorrelation and classification methods to identify malaria preventive measures (MPM) predictors.

Results

In 2012, 60.88% of pregnant women had incomplete use of MPMs compared with 79.11% in 2018. Associated factors with incomplete MPMs in 2012 were as follows: having an indirect link with the head of household (AOR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.08–4.61) and performing at least 4 ANC visits (AOR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.44–0.99). In 2018: Living in households of 2 to 5 people (AOR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.36–0.80), have a man as the head of the household (AOR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.35–0.89), perform the first ANC in the second trimester of pregnancy (AOR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.54–0.99), perform at least 4 ANC visits (AOR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.36–0.62), have a job (AOR = 0. 67, 95% CI 0.50–0.88), give birth in a public health facility (AOR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.39–0.72) and the middle wealth quintile (AOR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.07–2.26). Analyses revealed a global autocorrelation (Moran index = 0.0009, p = 0.2349) and high–high clusters in Mamou in 2012. In 2018, autocorrelation was found (I Moran = 0.0169, p ≤ 0.05), with spatial clusters in 4 regions.

Conclusion

The link with the head of household and the number of ANC visits were the main factors in MPMs. It is essential to implement strategies at the household level and health system level and monitor them to reduce inequality across regions.

Background

Malaria during pregnancy contributes to high maternal morbidity and mortality [1, 2]. In 2021, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), an estimated 33.8 million pregnancies occurred, of which 11.6 million (34%) were exposed to malaria infection during pregnancy [3], and west Africa had the highest prevalence (39.8%) [3]. Yet, the WHO has recommended a package of preventive measures for malaria during pregnancy, including the combined use of insecticide-treated nets (ITN) and intermittent preventive treatment during pregnancy with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP) [1]. These two prevention measures have been proven effective [4,5,6,7]. The WHO, in its global technical strategy for malaria 2016–2030, aims for at least 80% coverage in using these measures [8]. However, challenges remain to ensure optimal use, particularly in countries with high malaria endemicity [9, 10]. For instance, in the neighbouring country of Senegal, a secondary analysis of the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) 2013–2014 showed that 37.51% of pregnant women used this combination [11]. Similarly, according to the Global Malaria Report 2021, only 49% of pregnant women slept on ITN, and 32% received at least three doses of sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine (SP) [3]. Despite the low coverage estimates, the WHO indicated that the current levels of IPTp coverage contributed to avert an estimated 408,000 low birthweight in 2020 globally [3].

Accurate knowledge of the dynamic variations of malaria guides current preventive measures and control interventions [12]. “Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) are nationally-representative household surveys that provide data for a wide range of monitoring and impact evaluation indicators in the areas of population, health, and nutrition” [13]. In this sense, DHS accounted at the national level, a geo-localized health data source to produce spatial risk maps [14].

In Guinea, a previous investigation showed a small proportion (23.9%) of women meeting the conditons of the complete use of malaria preventive measures (MPM) during pregnancy [15]. However, this study of nine hospital districts excluded some regions of Guinea.

The study sought the use of MPM against malaria among pregnant women who have access to them—the spatial distribution and, finally, factors that influenced its use over time in Guinea. Since the DHS is a nationwide survey, we may draw from it a sound conclusion. Therefore, the primary goal of this analysis is to identify predictors of incomplete MPM use that would help define improved strategies for increased MPM use in Guinea.

Methods

Study setting

Guinea is a coastal country with an area of 245,857 km2 located in West Africa, halfway between the Equator and the Tropic of Cancer (7° 30′ and 12° 30′ north latitude and 8° and 15° west longitude) [16]. Administratively, the country is subdivided into 8 regions (Conakry, Boké, Kindia, Mamou, Labé, Faranah, Kankan, N'zérékoré) [16]. In 2020, Guinea's population was estimated at 12,559,363, with almost 52% women [16]. Guinea has a dry season and a rainy season, each lasting 6 months [17]. The rainy season runs from May to November.

Study design and data sources

A a secondary analysis of data from Guinea 2012 and 2018 DHS using the Guide to DHS Statistics was conducted [18]. Information on administrative region boundaries has been downloaded to the Spatial Data Repository-Boundaries (https://spatialdata.dhsprogram.com/home).

Study population

The study population was women of childbearing age (15–49 years) who resided in ordinary households across the country during the 2012 and 2018 DHS.

Criteria of selection

The samples considered in this analysis include data from women of childbearing age who gave birth in the three years preceding the surveys, lived in households that owned at least one ITN and had taken at least one dose of SP during pregnancy.

Study variables

Variables in the individual recoding file (IR), which stands for female data were extracted [19].

Dependent variable

The use of MPMs was the dependent variable. It consists of two variables: the ITN under which the women slept the night before the survey and the number of SP intakes. For the 2012 DHS, MPMs were assumed "complete" if a pregnant woman had received at least two doses of SP and slept under an ITN the night before the survey. Otherwise, the MPM was assumed "incomplete". For the 2018 DHS, MPMs were "complete" if a pregnant woman had received at least three doses of SP and slept under an ITN the night before the survey. Otherwise, they were assumed "incomplete". The difference in SP dose between 2012 and 2018 results from a change in national policy; in 2016, Guinea adopted the WHO recommendation to administer at least three doses of SP to prevent malaria during pregnancy [20].

Independent variables

Table 1 shows all the independent variables used in the study.

Table 1 Independent variables of the study and their levels
Full size table

Data analysis

All analyses were weighted to account for the complex sampling design of the surveys [18] and proceeded with the command "svydesign" in R [19]. Since the missing data were few (< 5%), univariate imputation by bootstrap through na.tools package was used [21]. Descriptive statistics summarized demographic, socio-economic characteristics and MPMs use. The results are presented in terms of frequency and proportions. Association between the dependent and independent variables was tested using the Wald independence test for complex surveys [22]. Multivariate logistic regression were performed to identify factors associated with the incomplete use of MPMs. Indeed, a stepback procedure was used. The quality of the fit of our regression model was tested by using the Hosmer–Lemeshow test and 2 × 2 interactions between independent variables. To identify a profile of predictors of the incomplete use of MPMs, the variables of the final model of multivariate logistic regression were used in the classification and regression trees (CART), while keeping the dependent variable of multivariate logistic regression.

Regarding the spatio–temporal analysis, the proportions of incomplete use of MPM during pregnancy were filtered by DHS and administrative areas. Spatial autocorrelation was used for each DHS. The autocorrelation index, whose values vary between − 1 and 1, tests the null hypothesis that the data observed at one location are independent of data from other regions; and an index value of 0 indicates no spatial autocorrelation in the data, a negative value indicates the grouping of different values, and, a positive value means a set of similar values [23]. The existence of a local index of spatial association (LISA) was assessed using the Moran Local Index, which verifies the region's value with that of its neighbours and identifies spatial patterns. This index generates four (4) quadrants [24]: high–high (observations have higher than average values of the variable in a neighbourhood that resembles them. It is a positive spatial autocorrelation with a high index value); low–low (observations have lower than average values of the variable, in a neighbourhood that resembles them. It is a positive spatial autocorrelation with a low index value); high–low (observations have higher than average values of the variable in a neighbourhood that does not resemble them [24]. It is a negative spatial autocorrelation with a high index value); low–high (observations have lower than average variable values in a neighbourhood that does not resemble them. It is a negative spatial autocorrelation with a low index value) [24]. Lastly, Bonferroni α correction was used to check the stability of the clusters.

Statistical tests were considered significant at threshold risk α = 5%, and all analyses were performed using R version 4.02.

Results

Investigators interviewed 9,142 women aged 15–49 in 2012 [25] and 10,874 women aged 15–49 in 2018 [26]. The final (weighted) sample included 685 women in 2012 and 2068 women in 2018. Figure 1 showed the flow diagrams of inclusion (DHS 2012 and DHS 2018).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow inclusion diagram of DHS 2012 and 2018

Full size image

Descriptive statistics

Table 2 shows a description of the study sample. The use of MPMs by pregnant women was incomplete in 60.88% of pregnant women in 2012 and 79.11% in 2018. In 2012, less than the half (45.69%) of women had completed their first ANC visit in the second trimester. In 2018, more than the half (58.41%) of women had completed their first ANC visit in the second trimester. Unlike the 2018 data, where most pregnant women (58.56%) did not perform four ANC visits, data from 2012 indicated most women (62.92%) completed at least four ANC visits. More than half of the women (52.99%) had given birth at home in 2012, while in 2018, most gave birth (54.93%) in public health facilities.

Table 2 Description of the study sample, DHS 2012 and 2018
Full size table

Univariate analysis

Table 3 describes the results of the univariate analysis between the dependent and the independent variables. In 2012 and 2018, variables significantly associated with MPMs in pregnant women were as follows: the size of the household, the gender of the head of household, the age of the head of household, the period of the first ANC visits and the number of ANC visits. However, marital status (p = 0.001), head of household (p < 0.001) and parity (p = 0.009) were only significant for 2012. Newspaper exposure (p = 0.013), radio exposure (p = 0.024), wealth quintile (p = 0.036), occupation (p < 0.001) and place of delivery (p < 0.001) were only significant for 2018.

Table 3 Univariate analysis in the use of malaria preventive measures during pregnancy, DHS Guinea 2012 and 2018
Full size table

Multivariate logistic regression

Table 4 shows the results of the multivariate logistic regression. In 2012, incomplete use of MPM was 1.99 times higher among single women than among married women (AOR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.01–3.94). Similarly, having an indirect link with the head of household increased incomplete use of MPM by 2.23 times (AOR = 2. 23, 95% CI 1.08–4.61). Women who attended at least four ANC visits were less likely to have incomplete MPM than those who attended less than four ANC visits (AOR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44–0.99). In 2018, women living in households of more than ten people were two times more likely to have incomplete use of MPMs than those living in households of two to five people (AOR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.36–0.80). Similarly, women living in households of between six and 10 people were 25% less likely to have incomplete MPM, but that association was not significant. Incomplete use of MPMs by pregnant women was significantly reduced by two times when the head of the household was male (AOR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.35–0.89). Performing the first ANC in the second quarter of pregnancy significantly reduced incomplete use of MPM by 1.35 times (AOR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.54–0.99). As in 2012, women who did not attend four ANC visits were significantly two times more likely to have incomplete use of MPMs than their counterparts who attended at least four ANCs (AOR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.36–0.62).) Not having access to newspapers increased pregnant women’s chances of incomplete MPMs by 1.54 times (AOR = 1.54, 95%; CI 1.02–2.34). Pregnant women who were not working were 1.5 times more likely to have incomplete use of MPM than those who were working (AOR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.50–0.88). In addition, women who gave birth at home were significantly two times more likely to have incomplete MPMs during their pregnancy than those who gave birth in a public health facility (AOR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.39–0.72). Moreover, incomplete use of MPM was significantly 1.56 times higher among women in wealthy households than among those in households in the middle wealth quintile (AOR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.07–2.26). Similarly, women in the poorer quintile were 1.23 more likely to have incomplete use of MPM than the middle quintiles, but the relation was not significant.

Table 4 Multivariate analysis in the use of malaria prevention measures during pregnancy, DHS data 2012 and 2018, Guinea
Full size table

Classification and regression trees

Figure 2 shows that the link with the head of household makes it possible to distinguish three main clusters using MPMs according to the direct link (d-link) or indirect link and the number of ANC visits attended. Cluster 3, women who had a direct relationship with the head of the household and had completed less than four ANCvisits. Cluster 4, women who had a direct relationship with the head of the household and had completed at least 4 ANC visits. Cluster 5, women had an indirect link with the head of the household. The risk of incomplete use of MPMs during pregnancy was higher (80%) when women had an indirect link to their head of household. Conversely, when this link was direct and the women had at least four ANC visits, the risk of incomplete MPMs was reduced by half (50%). Figure 3 shows that the risk of incomplete use of MPMs during pregnancy was higher among women who had not attended at least four ANC visits.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Profiles of predictors in the use of MPM with CART. DHS 2012

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Profiles of predictors in the use of MPM with CART. DHS 2018

Full size image

Spatial analysis

In 2012, Fig. 4 shows that the regions of Kindia, N'zérékoré and Conakry have the highest proportions of incomplete use of MPMs by pregnant women. However, Labé had the lowest ones. The global Moran index was 0.0009 in 2012, p = 0.2349 (Table 5), indicating a non-significant positive spatial autocorrelation. The Moran local index identified spatial clusters with the high–high model in the region of Mamou (Fig. 5). In 2018, the highest proportion of incomplete use of MPMs was found in the regions of Boké, Mamou, Labé, Faranah, and Kankan (Fig. 4). The use of MPMs was better in N'zérékoré, Kindia, and Conakry (Fig. 4). Significant positive spatial autocorrelation was found (overall Moran index in 2018 = 0.0169; p ≤ 0.05) (Table 5). The main high–high pattern was spotted in Boké, Mamou, and Labé (Figs. 5 and 6). Low–low clusters were identified in the region of N'zérékoré (Figs. 5 and 6). Lastly, low–high and high–low clusters were found in the regions of Kindia and Kankan (Figs. 5 and 6).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Incomplete use of MPM among pregnant women. DHS 2012/DHS 2018

Full size image
Table 5 Measurement of spatial autocorrelation of incomplete use of MPM during pregnancy
Full size table
Fig. 5
figure 5

Moran's local index map of incomplete use of MPM among pregnant women, DHS 2012/2018

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Moran's local significance of incomplete use of MPM among pregnant women. DHS 2012/2018

Full size image

Discussion

Investments continue to grow in the fight against malaria in Guinea. However, the coverage of MPMs remains low. The proportion of incomplete MPMs between the 2012 and 2018 DHSs was assessed. The occurrence of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in 2014 could be one of the most significant factors influencing this state of fact. EVD has disrupted health care delivery and created mistrust of health facilities [27]. However, we noticed that the use of MPMs by pregnant women is low in countries with high malaria endemicity [11, 28, 29]. Those findings could result from the fact that strategies are more focused on the distribution of preventive measures than the importance of their use [30]. Analyses revealed that insufficient ANC visits strongly predict incomplete MPMs, as confirmed in other settings [10, 11]. Hence, it is crucial to reinforce strategies that improve attendance of ANC visits.

Data from the 2012 DHS revealed that marital status and relationship with the head of household were significantly associated with MPMs use. Indeed, married women were more likely to use MPMs during pregnancy than single women, who require special attention because they can remain hidden and resort to self-medication [31]. In fact, in Nigeria, women reported needing the support or consent of their husbands before going to an ANC or taking the medication [28]. The existence of a direct link between the pregnant woman and the head of the household halved the risk of incomplete use of MPMs. In Guinea context, women often have to rely on the head of the household to make decisions about access to ITN or the use of the household income to pay for antenatal care services [32]. It is crucial to increase the awareness of the heads of the household to increase the complete use of MPMs.

In contrast, data from the 2018 DHS showed that the timing of the 1st ANC, household size, gender of the head of household, access to newspapers, occupation, place of delivery and wealth quintile were the predictors of the complete use of MPMs during pregnancy. The probability of incomplete use of MPMs was significantly higher when the woman performed her first ANC in the 1st quarter of pregnancy instead of the second trimester. A similar finding was reported in Uganda [10]. Indeed, the WHO recommends the administration of IPTp-SP during ANC from the second trimester of pregnancy [1]. Living in households of 10–38 people were significantly more likely to have incomplete use of MPMs during pregnancy than those living in households of less than six. Family size is negatively associated with the use of ITN at the individual level [33]. Indeed, according to data from the 2018 DHS, among households that have at least one ITN, 27% do not have enough of them to protect all household members [20]. Incomplete use of MPMs during pregnancy was high regardless of the sex of the head of the household, but decreased when the head of the household was male. Previous studies support this finding, as male-headed households have more financial resources and better access to health information [10, 33, 34]. Furthermore, almost all women who were not working had incomplete use of MPMs during pregnancy. A paid job gives women more chances to use complete MPMs [32].

No access to newspapers significantly increase the incomplete use of MPMs during pregnancy, suggesting a strengthening of awareness messages via the media for better impact. Moreover, results showed that women who gave birth at home had higher incomplete use of MPMs during pregnancy than those who gave birth at public health centres. Indeed, attendance at public health facilities for antenatal care influences the uptake of optimal doses of SP by pregnant women [34, 35]. Also, women in wealthy quintile households were significantly more likely to have incomplete use of MPMs than those in the middle quintile households. This result is consistent with that found by other authors [10, 11]. Diallo et al. suggest that in wealthy households, women may use other means of protection such as fans or air conditioners [15].

Analyses found that the Conakry, Kindia, and N'Zérokoré regions had higher proportions of incomplete MPM in 2012, though higher rates of completion of MPMs were seen in 2018. During the Ebola epidemic, authorities paid much attention to those areas [36]. Many changes occurred (renovation of health centres, recruitment of new health worker and their capacity building, increase in the share of state health financing from 3 to 8% etc.) to face the system failure caused by the outbreak. From 2012 to 2018, regional disparities were found in the use of MPM. In 2012, high–high spatial clusters were observed only in the region of Mamou, indicating a similar high proportion of incomplete usage in the neighbouring areas. In 2018, high–high space clusters were found in Boké, Mamou, and Labé. Also, the presence of high–low clusters in the region of Kankan showed a high proportion of incomplete use of these measures in this area, unlike in neighbouring regions. Regions of Kindia (low–high) and N'zérékoré (low–low) performed well in terms of MPM. These results highlight the need to strengthen malaria prevention in pregnant women.

Strengths and limitations

This is the first study on the combined use of ITN and SP (MPMs) during pregnancy in Guinea to include spatial analysis. Despite this, there have some limitations. In fact, during DHS, information about taking SP was based solely on women's memory. Nevertheless, this potential recall bias was minimized by limiting the analysis to births in the last 3 years before the surveys. Also, the use of ITN during pregnancy is based on sleeping under ITN the night before the survey. Yet, it is possible that the women used ITN during their pregnancies but did not use it the night before the survey. Additionally, study did not examine all factors that might influence the complete use of malaria preventive measures during pregnancy, such as adverse effects of SP, number and quality of mosquito nets per household. Lastly, a socio-anthropological study could also help better understand the low coverage of MPM among pregnant women.

Conclusion

This study underscores the non-decrease in a high proportion of MPM measures during pregnancy between the two DHS (2012 and 2018) in Guinea. The link with the head of household (DHS 2012) and the number of ANCs (DHS 2018) were the main factors in malaria preventive measures. Significant disparities were found in MPM use through the two DHS (2012 and 2018) and between neighbouring regions. It is essential to implement strategies at the household level (by paying attention to the link between pregnant women and the head of household) and health system level (by strengthening ANC visits) and monitor them to reduce inequality across regions.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analysed during the study were obtained with permission from ICF International and are available at https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Guinea_Standard-DHS_2018.cfm?flag=0. The R script used for the analysis is included in the manuscript (Additional file 1).

Abbreviations

ANC:

Antenatal care visit

AOR:

Adjusted odds ratio

CART:

Classification and regression trees

DHS:

Demographic and health survey

EVD:

Ebola virus disease

IPTp-SP:

Intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy using sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine

ITN:

Insecticide-treated mosquito nets

MPMs:

Malaria preventive measures

SP:

Sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. WHO. Policy brief for the implementation of intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy using sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP) [Internet]. Geneva, World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/atoz/policy_brief_iptp_sp_policy_recommendation/en/. Accessed 14 Nov 2018

  2. Kiwuwa MS, Mufubenga P. Use of antenatal care, maternity services, intermittent presumptive treatment and insecticide treated bed nets by pregnant women in Luwero district, Uganda. Malar J. 2008;7:44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. WHO. World malaria report 2021 [Internet]. Geneva, World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/teams/global-malaria-programme/reports/world-malaria-report-2021

  4. Eisele TP, Larsen DA, Anglewicz PA, Keating J, Yukich J, Bennett A, et al. Malaria prevention in pregnancy, birthweight, and neonatal mortality: a meta-analysis of 32 national cross-sectional datasets in Africa. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12:942–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kayentao K, Garner P, Maria van Eijk A, Naidoo I, Roper C, Mulokozi A, et al. Intermittent preventive therapy for malaria during pregnancy using 2 vs 3 or more doses of sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine and risk of low birth weight in Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2013;309:594.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Gutman J, Mwandama D, Wiegand RE, Ali D, Mathanga DP, Skarbinski J. Effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment with sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine during pregnancy on maternal and birth outcomes in Machinga District, Malawi. J Infect Dis. 2013;208:907–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sicuri E, Bardají A, Nhampossa T, Maixenchs M, Nhacolo A, Nhalungo D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy in Southern Mozambique. PLoS ONE. 2010;5: e13407.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. WHO. Global technical strategy for malaria 2016–2030. 2021 update. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/342995. Accessed 3 Sept 2021

  9. Ernst KC, Hayden MH, Olsen H, Cavanaugh JL, Ruberto I, Agawo M, et al. Comparing ownership and use of bed nets at two sites with differential malaria transmission in western Kenya. Malar J. 2016;15:217.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Mbonye KM, Kirwana BV, Ndugga P, Kikaire B, Baleeta K, Kabagenyi A, et al. Correlates of uptake of optimal doses of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for prevention of malaria during pregnancy in East-Central Uganda. Malar J. 2020;19:153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mbengue MAS, Bei AK, Mboup A, Ahouidi A, Sarr M, Mboup S, et al. Factors influencing the use of malaria prevention strategies by women in Senegal: a cross-sectional study. Malar J. 2017;16:470.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Gwitira I, Mukonoweshuro M, Mapako G, Shekede MD, Chirenda J, Mberikunashe J. Spatial and spatio-temporal analysis of malaria cases in Zimbabwe. Infect Dis Poverty. 2020;9:146.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. The DHS Program - Demographic and Health Survey (DHS). Disponible sur: https://dhsprogram.com/Methodology/Survey-Types/DHS.cfm. Accessed 15 Aug 2022.

  14. Barankanira E. Analyses spatiales de problèmes de santé publique en Afrique subsaharienne: exemples du VIH/SIDA et de la malnutrition. Thesis: Université de Montpellier; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Diallo A, Touré AA, Doumbouya A, Magassouba AS, Traoré F, Cissé M, et al. Factors associated with malaria preventive measures among pregnant women in Guinea. Infect Dis Obstetr Gynecol. 2021;2021: e9914424.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Institut National de la Statistique. Présentation de la Guinée. https://www.stat-guinee.org/. Accessed 20 Mar 2022.

  17. Ministère de la Santé. Plan National de Développement Sanitaire (PNDS) 2015–2024. Conakry, Guinée, 2015.

  18. Croft TN, Marshall AMJ, Allen CK. Guide to DHS Statistics. Rockville, Maryland, USA: ICF. 2018.

  19. DHS Recode Manual (English). https://dhsprogram.com/publications/publication-DHSG4-DHS-Questionnaires-and-Manuals.cfm. Accessed 17 Mar 2022.

  20. Institut National de la Statistique (INS), ICF. Enquête Démographique et de Santé en Guinée 2018. Conakry, Guinée, et Rockville, Maryland, USA; 2019.

  21. Brown C. na.tools: Comprehensive Library for Working with Missing (NA) Values in Vectors. 2018. R package version 0.3.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=na.tools. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/na.tools/na.tools.pdf. Accessed 17 Mar 2022.

  22. Lumley T. « survey: analysis of complex survey samples ». R package version 4.0. 2020.

  23. Moran PAP. Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika. 1950;37:17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies. Handbook of spatial analysis. https://www.insee.fr/en/information/3635545. Accessed 17 Mar 2022.

  25. Institut National de la Statistique (INS), ICF. Enquête Démographique et de Santé et à Indicateurs Multiples (EDS-MICS). Conakry, Guinée, et Claverton, Maryland, USA; 2013.

  26. Institut National de la Statistique (INS), ICF. Enquête Démographique et de Santé en Guinée 2018 : Rapport de synthèse. Rockville, Maryland, US; 2018.

  27. Shoman H, Karafillakis E, Rawaf S. The link between the West African Ebola outbreak and health systems in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone: a systematic review. Glob Health. 2017;13:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hill J, Hoyt J, van Eijk AM, D’Mello-Guyett L, ter Kuile FO, Steketee R, et al. Factors affecting the delivery, access, and use of interventions to prevent malaria in pregnancy in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2013;10: e1001488.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. van Eijk AM, Hill J, Alegana VA, Kirui V, Gething PW, ter Kuile FO, et al. Coverage of malaria protection in pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa: a synthesis and analysis of national survey data. Lancet Infect Dis. 2011;11:190–207.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Garley AE, Ivanovich E, Eckert E, Negroustoueva S, Ye Y. Gender differences in the use of insecticide-treated nets after a universal free distribution campaign in Kano State, Nigeria: post-campaign survey results. Malar J. 2013;12:119.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Bhalla D, Cleenewerck L, Okorafor Kalu S, Abubakar GK. Malaria prevention measures among pregnant women: a population-based survey in Nnewi. Nigeria Sci World J. 2019;2019: e6402947.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Azizi SC. Uptake of intermittent preventive treatment for malaria during pregnancy with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine in Malawi after adoption of updated World Health Organization policy: an analysis of demographic and health survey 2015–2016. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:335.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Matovu F, Goodman C, Wiseman V, Mwengee W. How equitable is bed net ownership and utilization in Tanzania? A practical application of the principles of horizontal and vertical equity. Malar J. 2009;8:109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Diiro GM, Affognon HD, Muriithi BW, Wanja SK, Mbogo C, Mutero C. The role of gender on malaria preventive behaviour among rural households in Kenya. Malar J. 2016;15:14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Seebens H. Intra-household bargaining, gender roles in agriculture and how to promote welfare enhancing changes. ESA Working Paper 11–10. Food and Agriculature Organization of the United Nations. 2011.

  36. Keita AK, Koundouno FR, Faye M, Düx A, Hinzmann J, Diallo H, et al. Resurgence of Ebola virus in 2021 in Guinea suggests a new paradigm for outbreaks. Nature. 2021;597:539–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank the Department of Teaching and Research of Public Health of the University of Bamako (DERSP), the FOGARTY program, the National Center for Training and Research in Rural Health (CNFRSR) of Maferinyah and the medical imaging, exploration and diagnostic office (CIMED) for their support during the analysis of these data and the preparation of this article. Thanks to the DHS program for making the data available. Lastly, we are grateful to Oumou BARRY, an independent English trainer, for taking the time and revise our manuscript for clarity and readability.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département d’Enseignement et de Recherche en Santé Publique et Spécialités (DERSP), Université des Sciences, des Techniques et des Technologies de Bamako (USTTB), Bamako, Mali

    Ibrahima Barry, Lancina Doumbia, Moctar Tounkara & Seydou Doumbia

  2. National Centre for Training and Research in Rural Health of Mafèrinyah, Forécariah, Guinea

    Ibrahima Barry, Almamy Amara Toure, Abdoul Habib Beavogui, Younoussa Sylla, Mahamoud Sama Cherif & Alseny Yarie Camara

  3. Department of Public Health, Kofi Annan University of Guinea, Conakry, Guinea

    Almamy Amara Toure

  4. Département d’Enseignement et de Recherche des Sciences Biologiques et Médicales (DERSBM), Faculté de Pharmacie (FAPH), USTTB, Bamako, Mali

    Oumar Sangho

  5. Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences and Techniques, Gamal Abdel Nasser University, Conakry, Guinea

    Diao Cisse, Aboubacar Sidiki Magassouba & Alexandre Delamou

  6. Service de Gynécologie, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Ignace Deen, Conakry, Guinea

    Abdourahamane Diallo

  7. Institut National de Santé Publique Mali, Bamako, Mali

    Fatou Diawara

  8. African Centre of Excellence in the Prevention and Control of Communicable Diseases (CEA-PCMT), Conakry, Guinea

    Alexandre Delamou

Authors
  1. Ibrahima Barry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Almamy Amara Toure
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oumar Sangho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abdoul Habib Beavogui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Diao Cisse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abdourahamane Diallo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Aboubacar Sidiki Magassouba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Younoussa Sylla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Lancina Doumbia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Mahamoud Sama Cherif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Alseny Yarie Camara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Fatou Diawara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Moctar Tounkara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Alexandre Delamou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Seydou Doumbia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

IB obtained permission to download the datasets, analysed the data and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. AAT designed the study, analysed the data, and was a major contributor to the improvement of the manuscript. OS provided critical comments and additional interpretations. AHB, DC, AD, ASM, YS, LD, MSC, AYC, FD, MT, AD and SD critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Almamy Amara Toure.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Permission to use the datasets was requested and obtained on the DHS website https://www.dhsprogram.com/data. No personal data identifying the respondents were collected. Additionally, the data from the study were analysed in accordance with the relevant rules.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

The R script used for the analysis is included in the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barry, I., Toure, A.A., Sangho, O. et al. Variations in the use of malaria preventive measures among pregnant women in Guinea: a secondary analysis of the 2012 and 2018 demographic and health surveys. Malar J 21, 309 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04322-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04322-3

Keywords

Malaria Journal

ISSN: 1475-2875

Contact us