Skip to main content

Table 3 Proportion variations in use of ITNs and untreated nets, by children under give across different social economic groups in Mpanda and Kisarawe districts

From: Equity implications of coverage and use of insecticide treated nets distributed for free or with co-payment in two districts in Tanzania: A cross-sectional comparative household survey

Social economic groups

 

Poorest

Very poor

Poor

Less Poor

Least poor

Conc. index

1.Mpanda (N = 290)Over all

Proportion use %(N)[95%CI]

ITN (N = 222)

15.2%(44)[11.4-19.7]

14.8%(43)[11.1-19.3]

15.5%(45)[11.7-20.0]

16.2(47)[12.3-20.8]

14.8%(43)[11.1-19.3]

0.009

Untreated Net(N = 22)

1.8%/(5)[0.6-3.8]

0.7%(2)[0.11-2.26]

2.1%(6)[3.6-19.6]

1% (3)[0.3-2.8]

2.1%(6)[0.8-4.3]

0.064

Any Net(N = 244)

16.9%(49)[12.9-21.5]

15.5%(45)[11.7-20.0]

17.6%(51)[13.5-22.3]

17.2%(52)[13.2-21.9]

16.9%(48)[12.9-21.5]

0.014

2.Kisarawe (N = 211) Overall

Proportion use %(N)[95%CI]

     

ITN (N = 88)

6.6%(14)[3.8-10.6]

9%(19)[5.7-13.5]

8.1%(17)[4.9-12.3]

8.5%(18)[5.3-12.9]

9.5%(20)[6.1-14.0]

0.027

Untreated Net(N = 32)

1.4%(3)[0.4-3.8]

1.9%(4)[0.6-4.5]

2.8%(6)[1.2-5.8]

2.4%(5)[0.9-5.2]

5.7%(12)[3.1-9.5]

0.232

Any Net(=118)

8%(17)[4.9-12.3]

10.9%(23)[7.2-15.7]

10.9%(23)[7.2-15.7]

10.9%(23)[7.2-15.7]

15.2%(32)[10.8-20.5]

0.082