Skip to main content

Table 4 Source of mosquito ITNs in various study households inMpanda and Kisarawe district by household economic status group

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

Source of Net

Socio economic groups

 

Poorest

Very poor

Poor

Less Poor

Least Poor

Conc. Index

1. Mpanda

(N = 369) overall

(N = 77)

(N = 71)

(N = 67)

(N = 75)

(N = 79)

 

Proportion %(N)[95% CI]

     

Free Nets

66.2%(51)[54.6-76.6]

78.9%56)[67.6-87.7]

61.2%(41)[48.5-72.9]

61.3%(46)[49.4-72.9]

46.8%(37)[35.5-58.4]

-0.064

Commercial

27.3%(21)[17.7-38.6]

19.7%(14)[11.2-30.9]

31.3%(21) [20.6-43.8]

25.3%(19)[16.0-36.7]

50.6%(40)[39.1-62.1]

0.156

Social Market

2.6%(2)[0.3-9.1]

0.00

4.5%(3) [0.9-12.5]

2.7%(2)[0.3-9.3]

2.5%(2)[0.3-8.8]

0.172

Other Source

3.9%(3)[0.8-11.0]

1.4%(1) [0.04-7.6]

2.9% (2) [0.4-10.4]

10.7%(8)[4.7-19.9]

0.00

0.04

2.Kisarawe

(N = 207))overall

(N = 25)

(N = 26)

(N = 40)

(N = 45)

(N = 71)

 

Proportion %(N)[95% CI]

     

Free Nets

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Commercial

16.0%(4)[4.5-36.1]

42.3%(11)[23.4-63.1]

50.0%(20)[33.8-66.2]

51.1%(23)[35.8-66.3]

50.7%(36)[38.6-62.8]

0.269

Social Market

68.0%(17)[46.5-85.1]

46.2%(12)[26.6-66.6]

45.0%(18)[29.0-61.5]

28.9%(13)[16.4-44.3]

36.6%(26)[25.5-49.9]

0.003

Other Source

16.0%(4)[4.5-36.1]

11.5%(3)[2.4-30.2]

5.0%(2)[4.2-26.8]

20.0% (9)[8.0-32.1]

12.7%(9)[6.0-22.7]

0.179