# name
Evidence of high bed net usage from a list randomization
                experiments in rural Gambia.

# metadata.dc.description.abstract[].value
Label: BACKGROUND NlmCategory: BACKGROUND content:
                Recording behaviours that have the potential to impact health
                can be doubly challenging if the behaviour takes place in
                private spaces that cannot be observed directly, and where
                respondents answer what they think the recorder may want to
                hear. Sleeping under a long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) is
                an important intervention for malaria prevention, yet it is
                difficult to gauge the extent to which coverage (how many nets
                are in the community) differs from usage (how many people
                actually sleep under a net). List randomization, a novel method
                which partially obscures respondents' answers to sensitive
                questions, was employed to estimate LLIN usage in The Gambia. -
                Label: METHODS NlmCategory: METHODS content: "802
                heads-of-household from 15 villages were recruited into a
                randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of a housing
                intervention on malaria. These houses were randomly assigned to
                a housing intervention versus control, with stratification by
                village so as to ensure balance between arms. From these, 125
                households (63 intervention, 52 control) were randomly selected
                for participation in the list randomization experiment, along
                with 68 households from the same villages but which were not
                part of the housing improvement study, resulting in a total of
                196 households for the list randomization experiment.
                Approximately half (n\xE2\x80\x89=\xE2\x80\x8997) of the 196
                study participants were randomly assigned to the control group
                and received a four-question list about non-sensitive
                behaviours; the intervention group
                (n\xE2\x80\x89=\xE2\x80\x8999) received the same list, with the
                addition of one question on a sensitive behaviour: whether or
                not they had used a bed net the previous night. Participants
                were read the list of questions and then said how many of the
                statements were true. Bed net usage was estimated by calculating
                the difference in means between the number of affirmative
                responses between the two groups." - Label: RESULTS NlmCategory:
                RESULTS content: The mean number of affirmative responses in the
                control group was 2.60 of four statements (95% confidence
                interval, 95% CI 2.50-2.70), compared with 3.68 (95% CI
                3.59-3.78) in the intervention group. Such difference (1.08; 95%
                CI 94.9-100%) suggests near universal bed net usage. - Label:
                CONCLUSIONS NlmCategory: CONCLUSIONS content: Bed net usage by
                household heads in these rural villages was found to be high.
                Though not entirely unexpected given other studies' estimates of
                high bed net usage in the area, the list randomization method
                should be further validated in an area with lower coverage.

# metadata.dc.source[].value
Articles publicats en revistes (ISGlobal)

# metadata.dc.title[].value
Evidence of high bed net usage from a list randomization
                experiments in rural Gambia.