|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|The content of Mosquito bar was merged into Mosquito net on October 11, 2011. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
Merge into Mosquito bar
I've used them. In theory they are supposed to work, but realistically they don't. The net develops holes eventually, and having just one tiny hole, renders the entire net useless because the mosquitos get in the net, but they can't get out, which results in numerous mosquito bites. Use a fan, bug repellant, and keep the windows closed. Inforazer 17:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I've useed them too (for over two years in the Dominican Republic). I like them, they are by far the most comfortable way to sleep in tropical areas with bugs. Fans rely on electricity, which is not always reliable; bug repellant, for continued use, is more expensive and uncomfortable than nets; and windows that close are not as ubiquitous in tropical areas as one might think, and with them closed the air is stagnant. My advice is to leave the windows open and use a net, just take care of it don't tear holes in it.
Moved from main article
The distribution of mosquito nets impregnated with insecticides such as permethrin or deltamethrin has been shown to be an extremely effective method of malaria prevention, and it is also one of the most cost-effective methods of prevention. These nets can often be obtained for around US$2.50 to US$3.50 (€2 to €3) from the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO), and others. ITNs have been shown to be the most cost-effective prevention method against malaria and are part of WHO’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
While some experts argue that international organizations should distribute ITNs and LLINs to people for free in order to maximize coverage (since such a policy would reduce price barriers), others insist that cost-sharing between the international organization and recipients would lead to greater usage of the net (arguing that people will value a net more if they pay for it). Additionally, proponents of cost-sharing argue that such a policy ensures that nets are efficiently allocated to those people who most need them (or are most vulnerable to infection). Through a "selection effect", they argue, those people who most need the bed nets will choose to purchase them, while those less in need will opt out.
However, a randomized controlled trial study of ITNs uptake among pregnant women in Kenya, conducted by economists Pascaline Dupas and Jessica Cohen, found that cost-sharing does not necessarily increase the usage intensity of ITNs, nor does it induce uptake by those most vulnerable to infection, as compared to a policy of free distribution. In some cases, cost-sharing can actually decrease demand for mosquito nets by erecting a price barrier. Dupas and Cohen’s findings support the argument that free distribution of ITNs can be more effective than cost-sharing in both increasing coverage and saving lives. In a cost-effectiveness analysis, Dupas and Cohen note that "cost-sharing is at best marginally more cost-effective than free distribution, but free distribution leads to many more lives saved."
The researchers base their conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of free distribution on the proven spillover benefits of increased ITN usage. When a large number of nets are distributed in one residential area, their chemical additives help reduce the number of mosquitoes in the environment. With fewer mosquitoes in the environment, the chances of malaria infection for recipients and non-recipients are significantly reduced. (In other words, the importance of the physical barrier effect of ITNs decreases relative to the positive externality effect [clarification needed What does phrase 'positive externality effect' mean?] of the nets in creating a mosquito-free environment when ITNs are highly concentrated in one residential cluster or community.)
For maximum effectiveness, the nets should be re-impregnated with insecticide every six months. This process poses a significant logistical problem in rural areas. New technologies like Olyset or DawaPlus allow for production of long-lasting insecticidal mosquito nets (LLINs), which release insecticide for approximately 5 years, and cost about US$5.50. ITNs protect people sleeping under the net and simultaneously kill mosquitoes that contact the net. Some protection is also provided to others by this method, including people sleeping in the same room but not under the net. However, mathematical modeling has highlighted certain conditions whereby disease transmission may be exacerbated after bed nets have lost their insecticidal properties. Although ITN users are still protected by the physical barrier of the netting, non-users could experience an increased bite rate as mosquitoes are deflected away from the non-lethal bed net users.
While distributing mosquito nets is a major component of malaria prevention, community education and awareness on the dangers of malaria are associated with distribution campaigns to make sure people who receive a net know how to use it. "Hang Up" campaigns, such as the ones conducted by volunteers of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement consist of visiting households that received a net at the end of the campaign or just before the rainy season, ensuring that the net is being used properly and that the people most vulnerable to malaria, such as young children and the elderly, sleep under it. A study conducted by the CDC in Sierra Leone showed a 22 percent increase in net utilization following a personal visit from a volunteer living in the same community promoting net usage. A study in Togo showed similar improvements.Mosquito nets are often unaffordable to people in developing countries, especially for those most at risk. Only 1 out of 20 people in Africa own a bed net. Nets are also often distributed though vaccine campaigns using voucher subsidies, such as the measles campaign for children. A study among Afghan refugees in Pakistan found that treating top-sheets and chaddars (head coverings) with permethrin has similar effectiveness to using a treated net, but is much cheaper. Another alternative approach uses spores of the fungus Beauveria bassiana, sprayed on walls and bed nets, to kill mosquitoes. While some mosquitoes have developed resistance to chemicals, they have not been found to develop a resistance to fungal infections.
- Jessica Cohen, Pascaline Dupas (February 2010). "Free Distribution or Cost-Sharing? Evidence from a Randomized Malaria Prevention Experiment" (PDF). Quarterly Journal of Economics 125 (1): 24. A brief description of the project may be found here: http://poverty-action.org/project/bednets
- Hawley WA, Phillips-Howard PA, ter Kuile FO, et al. (April 2003). "Community-wide effects of permethrin-treated bed nets on child mortality and malaria morbidity in western Kenya". Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 68 (4 Suppl): 121–7. PMID 12749495.
- New Mosquito Nets Could Help Fight Malaria in Africa[dead link]
- Yakob, Laith; Guiyun Yan (2009). "Modeling the Effects of Integrating Larval Habitat Source Reduction and Insecticide Treated Nets for Malaria Control". PLoS ONE (Public Library of Science) 4 (9): e6921. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006921. PMC 2734167. PMID 19742312.
- "International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (200) "The winning formula - World Malaria Day Report 2009"" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-08-24.
- Rowland M, Durrani N, Hewitt S, Mohammed N, Bouma M, Carneiro I, Rozendaal J, Schapira A (1999). "Permethrin-treated chaddars and top-sheets: appropriate technology for protection against malaria in Afghanistan and other complex emergencies". Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 93 (5): 465–72. doi:10.1016/S0035-9203(99)90341-3. PMID 10696399.
- "Fungus 'may help malaria fight'", BBC News, 2005-06-09