Search

Additional file 4: Operational performance of EPSA (N = 288).

Additional file 3: Pharmaceutical supply chain integration practice of EPSA (N = 288).

Additional file 1: The Baron and Kenny stepwise approach.

Additional file 2: Information sharing practice at EPSA (N = 288).

Background: Indoor residual spraying was a long standing malaria prevention and control strategy in the world. In Ethiopia, it was initiated in 1959 with the global malaria eradication campaign. This intervention is still one of the pillar malaria prevention and control strategies in the country. However, the acceptance of the intervention by the community is becoming a challenge. Objectives: The aims of this study were to assess the knowledge and perception of the community about malaria in general and vector control methods focusing on indoor residual spraying in particular, factors that affect its acceptance by the community, and finally to determine re-plastering rate after IRS. Methods: A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted using interviewer-administered questionnaire. The study was conducted during March-April 2010 in Lume district, Oromia region central eastern part of Ethiopia. 807 house holds were selected from these 6 kebeles by systematic random sampling technique using proportional allocation to size. Focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews were also held to supplement the quantitative data. The quantitative data was managed by Epi-info version 6 and SPSS version 11 statistical softwares. Results: From 776 respondents, 87% of them have at least heard about malaria (called "busa" in their local language. One of the typical sign of malaria i.e. "Fever" was mentioned as sign of malaria by only 41% of the respondents. Mosquito bite was mentioned as a factor for malaria transmission by about 80% of the respondents. Respondents who can read and write including those attended formal education were found 1.65 times more likely of making their house to be sprayed than those who can't read and write [AOR=1.62, 95% CI: (1.05-2.49)]. Households that have heard the announcement were found six times more likely of making their house to be sprayed than those who don't [AOR=6.5, 95% CI: (2.92-14.46)]. Households that perceived increment of nuisance annoyance were found five times more likely of re-plastering the sprayed wall than those who perceived the decrement [AOR=4.98, 95% CI: (1.97-12.62)]. In general, of the 100% targeted households, more than 16% were left unsprayed; among the sprayed ones about 7% were not willing; and more than 20% have re-plastered the sprayed walls with in few days of spray. Conclusions: This study revealed that there is lack of knowledge on malaria prevention and control in the community. Communicating the community about what is going to be done in certain period regarding the intervention was seen to have an impact on the performance. The study also indicated that there is a serious concern regarding the side action of the chemical particularly DDT on house nuisances that the hard science should address besides to checking its efficacy on mosquito.