Post 00767e : Measles Campaign And Itn Distribution

POST 00767E : MEASLES CAMPAIGN AND ITN DISTRIBUTION Follow-up on Posts 00763E and 00765E 24 March 2005 _____________________________________ We continue the posting of the discussion on ITNand measles campaign with two contributions. The first is from Mike Favin (mailto:[email protected]) of the Manoff Group in the United States with two attachments. The following is a short second contribution from Mark Grabowsky (mailto:[email protected]) of the American red Cross _____________________________________ Hi, Robert, Mark, et al., Just a few brief comments on the interesting exchange below. I do have a bit of experience with bed nets, although neither in selling them via social marketing nor distributing them free as part of campaigns. First I definitely agree with Mark that the nets potentially have a tremendous social benefit, and that distributing them via social marketing is not going to get them into enough poor households. My main concern with the nets, in fact, is not getting them into people's homes -- which for programs with significant money ain't hard -- but rather with appropriate use of the nets once they're there. We actually did a recent review of these issues and some research (including trials) in Zambia (see attachments). There are rampant problems with the wrong people (ie fathers) sleeping under the nets, with lack of retreatment, with very frequent washings, with nets poorly hung, with people using them only in the high mosquito season (in fact mosquitoes in the drier season are more likely to carry malaria), with people not using nets as intended but using them for a prestigious decoration or to make wedding dresses, etc. So my main concern is regardless of how nets get distributed, how will people be given a good enough orientation and reinforcement about their intended use? It seems to me that this is very unlikely to happen when nets are given out en masse during campaigns. That's it. You got my 2 cents. Regards, Mike ----------------------------------------- Our research shows that use (treatment, hanging up, sleeping under) is independent of distribution method. It only correlates with wealth and seasonality. Despite implications to the contrary, there is no "use" advantage to social marketing over mass distribution. Our findings are that social marketing tends to use a less expensive net that requires treatment by the purchaser, and the rate of proper treatment of these nets is low (about 40%). Mass, free distribution tends to use a more expensive LLITN that does not require treatment so there is a built-in 40% advantage for proper treatment. Mark Grabowsky, MD, MPH CDC Technical Advisor American Red Cross ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Visit the TECHNET21 Website at http://www.technet21.org You will find instructions to subscribe, a direct access to archives, links to reference documents and other features. ______________________________________________________________________________ To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message to : mailto:[email protected] Leave the subject area BLANK In the message body, write unsubscribe TECHNET21E ______________________________________________________________________________ The World Health Organization and UNICEF support TechNet21. The TechNet21 e-Forum is a communication/information tool for generation of ideas on how to improve immunization services. It is moderated by Claude Letarte and is hosted in cooperation with the Centre de internationale en sant, Canada (http://www.ccisd.org) ______________________________________________________________________________ ##text## ##text##