Different delivery mechanisms for insecticide-treated nets in rural Burkina Faso: A provider's perspective

Abstract

Background: Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) have been confirmed to be a very effective tool in malaria control. Two different delivery strategies for roll-out of ITN programmes have been the focus of debate in the last years: free distribution and distribution through commercial marketing systems. They are now seen as complementary rather than opponent. Acceptance of these programmes by the community and involved providers is an important aspect influencing their sustainability. This paper looks at how providers perceived, understood and accepted two interventions involving two different delivery strategies (subsidized sales supported by social marketing and free distribution to pregnant women attending antenatal care services). Methods. The interventions took place in one province of north-western Burkina Faso in 2006 in the frame of a large randomized controlled ITN intervention study. For this descriptive qualitative study data were collected through focus group discussions and individual interviews. A total of four focus group discussions and eleven individual interviews have been conducted with the providers of the study interventions. Results. The free distribution intervention was well accepted and perceived as running well. The health care staff had a positive and beneficial view of the intervention and did not feel overwhelmed by the additional workload. The social marketing intervention was also seen as positive by the rural shopkeepers. However, working in market economy, shopkeepers feared the risk of unsold ITNs, due to the low demand and capacity to pay for the product in the community. Conclusion. The combination of ITN free distribution and social marketing was in general well accepted by the different providers. However, low purchasing power of clients and the resulting financial insecurities of shopkeepers remain a challenge to ITN social marketing in rural SSA. © 2010 Beiersmann et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.