Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The two household-level indicators-one representing minimal coverage, the other only 'universal' coverage-provide an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of personal protection and the success of an ITN distribution programme. Under current ITN distribution strategies, the global malaria community cannot expect countries to reach 80% of households owning 1 ITN for 2 people at a national level. When programmes assess the success of ITN distribution activities, population access to ITNs should be considered as the better indicator of "universal coverage," because it is based on people as the unit of analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Koenker et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: