Anambra State Post-Campaign Net Tracking Survey

Executive Summary
Anambra LLIN campaign evaluation
As part of the evaluation of the Nigerian efforts in rapid scale up of ITN ownership and
use in the country, a population representative household survey was undertaken in
Anambra State in November 2009, at the end of the rainy season and approximately
four months following the LLIN distribution campaign. The survey used the standard two
stage cluster sampling design and produced data for 1012 households or 99.2% of the
target.
The major conclusions from this survey can be summarized as follows:
• The LLIN distribution was successful in that it dramatically increased the coverage
compared to the pre-campaign status; from 2.0% to 64.3% for ITN ownership.
• Delivery of LLIN at the distribution points was very effective and equitable but there
were some problems with the registration process that lead to only 80.0% of
households being registered.
• Estimates of the number of LLIN actually distributed based on the census data and
survey estimates suggest that no significant leakage of LLIN from the campaign has
occurred.
• Net hanging was not very high with only 61.1% of campaign nets hanging but this was
mainly due to motivational problems and nets not being needed rather than people not
knowing how to hang the net as only 6.8% of households reported such difficulties in
hanging.
• Once the decision was taken to hang the net, use was good and nets were used very
frequently suggesting that addressing the general motivation to use nets (net culture) is
the main problem in Anambra State.
• Achieved coverage with at least two LLIN per household – the national indicator for
universal coverage – was quite high with 68.2%, but short of the 80% target. However,
if the “one net for every two people” criteria was used, universal coverage was only
42.9% and this is due to the limitation of two nets per household irrespective of
household size.
While there is evidence that the BCC component was effective in supporting net hanging and
use, it was obviously lacking in intensity.
The following summarizes key findings in more detail:
Registration for LLIN
Out of the 60 sampled clusters, all were visited by the registration team. In 5% of the
settlements less than 50% of households were registered and all of them were in urban
areas. Two thirds of the settlements achieved a registration rate of >80% and absence of
the family was the main reason for non-registration. At household level 80.0% were
registered and 79.1% actually went to the distribution point.
Distribution of LLIN
Once families got to the distribution points, 92.3% also received LLIN. Of the families
that went to the distribution point and presenting a registration card, 94.0% got a net so
that few households that were registered were not served by the campaign.
8