Inequalities in Household Access to Insecticide-Treated Nets and Indoor Residual Spraying in 34 African Countries
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
Malaria control through insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) is essential in sub-Saharan Africa. This study assesses wealth status and residence-based inequalities in household access to these interventions across 34 African countries.
Methods
A cross-sectional analytical design was used, drawing on nationally representative household surveys (Demographic and Health Surveys, Malaria Indicator Surveys, multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys) collected between 2005 and 2018. Data from the WHO Health Equity Monitor provided equity-disaggregated indicators on ITN/IRS coverage by wealth quintile and place of residence (rural/urban). The primary outcome was the percentage of households with at least one ITN and/or IRS coverage in the previous 12 months. We calculated both the percentage and disparities of inequalities across four inequality dimensions: difference (D), ratio (R), population-attributable risk (PAR), and population-attributable fraction (PAF)
Results
The ITN and/or IRS coverage varied widely from countries, highest in Mali (93.6%), Benin (92.0%), Burkina Faso (89.8%), and Rwanda (89.2%), and lowest in Ethiopia (3.4%) and Eswatini (4.4%). Wealth-related inequalities included pro-rich patterns with Burundi reporting the largest absolute difference (D = 33.6 percentage points), ratio (R = 2.1), population attributable risk (PAR = 17.5), and population attributable fraction (PAF = 37.5%). Other countries with notable pro-rich disparities included São Tomé and Príncipe (D = 28.8; R = 1.7; PAR = 12.1; PAF = 20.0%) and Malawi (D = 24.2; R = 1.5; PAR = 12.2; PAF = 20.8%). The strong pro-poor patterns were observed in Namibia (D = –36.5; R = 0.3), Gambia (D = –28.6; R = 0.7), and Nigeria (D = –28.2; R = 0.7), with marginal PAF, indicating minimal inequality-related coverage loss. Rural-urban disparities also varied, with Burundi showing a pro-urban absolute difference (D = 20.3), ratio (R = 1.5), PAR (18.1), and PAF (38.7%), whereas Zimbabwe (D = –31.5; R = 0.5) and Namibia (D = –32.7; R = 0.3) exhibited pro-rural advantages.
Conclusions
The study shows persistent wealth-related and geographical inequalities in access to ITNs and IRS across sub-Saharan Africa. Targeted efforts aimed at reducing these disparities are essential to achieving equitable and universal malaria prevention coverage consistent with global malaria and Sustainable Development Goal targets.
