Factores detrás de la renuencia al control vectorial del Dengue en tres distritos del Norte del Perú

Palma-Pinedo, Helen; Cabrera, Rufino; Yagui, Martín

doi:10.17843/rpmesp.2016.331.1900

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants in both focus groups discussed that mosquitoes and other pests proliferate in untouched outdoor spaces, such as unchanneled streams, vacant lots, recycling sites, and garbage dumps, and that mosquitoes colonize homes from these places. Similar perceptions were noted by Palma-Pinedo in Peru, in which it was argued that mosquitoes originate in fields and abandoned houses and from there colonize dwellings [18]. Thus, the association of mosquitoes with outdoor habitat deflates confidence in a control measure that focuses on indoor spaces.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…One reason for the doubtful attitude towards fumigation was the observation of mosquitoes immediately after treatment. Palma-Pinedo et al [18] noted similar concerns in their study, with participants claiming that mosquitoes leave homes during treatment but return soon after. Such lack of perceived utility may be attributed to the fact that the insecticide used has no residual effect and only acts while suspended in the air [10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…Particularly, residents who work far from home can't be present when vector control activities normally take place [34,35]. As SSM fumigation is performed on weekdays and during working hours, it is possible that the proportion of closed houses observed in this study can be explained by this factor [18,35]. Health officials should consider this barrier and provide a second opportunity for treatment during non-business hours.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main barrier to treatment with fumigation observed in this study was the high proportion of closed houses at the time of the visit, resulting in below-target coverage. Palma-Pinedo [18] reported that one of the main problems in vector control is that scheduled treatments do not conform to the routines of families. Particularly, residents who work far from home can't be present when vector control activities normally take place [34,35].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the entomological efficacy of fumigation, new cases of dengue are sometimes reported in areas that received treatment [6,15], and the epidemiological impact of thermal fogging (that is, its ability to reduce dengue transmission) remains unclear [16]. Limited success in reducing cases of dengue could be due to barriers that lead to suboptimal coverage, such as lack of accessibility to houses [17] or rejection by residents due to safety concerns [18]. According to the recommendations of some ministries of health, coverage must be at least 95.0% in order to substantially reduce dengue cases [19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Barriers that limit the implementation of thermal fogging for the control of dengue in Colombia: a study of mixed methods

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Thermal fogging of Insecticides is a vector control strategy used by the Medellin Secretary of Health to combat dengue. This method is employed during outbreaks to curb populations of potentially infectious adult mosquitoes and interrupt transmission cycles. While this strategy has been used in Medellin since 2007, in some years it has not reduced dengue cases as expected. Difficulties in the implementation of fumigation strategies, such as lack of opportunity for treatment and public perception may be factors that limit its utility. The objective of this study was to identify barriers that hinder the implementation of thermal fogging, as well as attitudes and beliefs that prevent its acceptance. Methods: We used a cross-sectional observational study of mixed methods carried out in neighborhoods prioritized for fumigation treatment in Medellin, Colombia. First, we assessed the timeliness of treatment by determining the latency period between reported dengue cases and the implementation of fumigation in response to those cases. Next, we administered structured questionnaires to residents in the area of fumigation treatments (n = 4455 homes) to quantify acceptance and rejection, as well as factors associated with rejection. Results: The median time between notification and treatment was 25 days (IQR 20.0-36.5). Fumigators were only able to treat 53.7% of total households scheduled for treatment; 9.6% rejected treatment, and treatment teams were unable to fumigate the remaining 36.7% of homes due to absent residents, no adults being present, and other reasons. The most frequent causes for rejection were residents being busy at the time of treatment (33.1%) and no interest in the treatment (24.5%). Other reasons for rejection include the perceptions that fumigation does not control pests other than mosquitoes (4.3%), that no mosquitoes were present in the home (3.3%), and that fumigation affects human health (3.1%). Conclusions: The high percentage of houses where it was not possible to perform fumigation limits control of the vector. Future strategies should consider more flexible treatment schedules and incorporate informational messages to educate residents about the safety and importance of treatment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Barriers that limit the implementation of thermal fogging for the control of dengue in Colombia: a study of mixed methods

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Cutaneous Manifestations of Zika in Peru

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to describe the cutaneous manifestations observed in the Zika epidemic in Peru during 2016 and 2017, as well as discuss the potential differential diagnoses. During the outbreak, the main reason for seeking medical advice was the development of a pruriginous maculopapular rash with a marked papular component, which started on the chest and later generalized to the rest of the body. Similar manifestations were noted in adults, children, and pregnant women. Other manifestations such as conjunctivitis, edema, or petechiae on the palate were rare. We suggest that in areas that are endemic for arboviral infections, in the differential diagnosis of a rash one must consider infections such as dengue, Zika, or chikungunya viruses. In nonendemic areas, the diagnosis is more difficult, as the rash may result from other viral infections not transmitted by arthropods and/or reactive or inflammatory diseases (urticaria, atopic dermatitis, systemic lupus erythematosus). We recommend that primary care health personnel are trained in the recognition of the mucocutaneous lesions caused by Zika virus infection, which could contribute to the identification of suspicious cases, particularly pregnant women.

show abstract

Coverage and beliefs about temephos application for control of dengue vectors and impact of a community-based prevention intervention: secondary analysis from the Camino Verde trial in Mexico

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTemephos in domestic water containers remains a mainstay of Latin American government programmes for control of Aedes aegypti and associated illnesses, including dengue. There is little published evidence about coverage of routine temephos programmes. A cluster randomised controlled trial of community mobilisation in Mexico and Nicaragua reduced vector indices, dengue infection, and clinical dengue cases. Secondary analysis from the Mexican arm of the trial examined temephos coverage and beliefs, and the impact of the trial on these outcomes.MethodsThe trial impact survey in December 2012, in 10,491 households in 45 intervention and 45 control clusters, asked about visits from the temephos programme, retention of applied temephos, and views about temephos and mosquito control. Fieldworkers noted if temephos was present in water containers.ResultsSome 42.4% of rural and 20.7% of urban households reported no temephos programme visits within the last 12 months. Overall, 42.0% reported they had temephos placed in their water containers less than 3 months previously. Fieldworkers observed temephos in at least one container in 21.1% of households. Recent temephos application and observed temephos were both significantly more common in urban households, when other household variables were taken into account; in rural areas, smaller households were more likely to have temephos present.Most households (74.4%) did not think bathing with water containing temephos carried any health risk. Half (51%) believed drinking or cooking with such water could be harmful and 17.6% were unsure.Significantly fewer households in intervention sites (16.5%) than in control sites (26.0%) (Risk Difference − 0.095, 95% confidence interval − 0.182 to −0.009) had temephos observed in their water; more households in intervention clusters (41.8%) than in control clusters (31.6%) removed the applied temephos quickly. Although fewer households in intervention sites (82.7%) compared with control sites (86.7%) (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.067 to −0.013) agreed temephos and fumigation was the best way to avoid mosquitoes, the proportion believing this remained very high.ConclusionCoverage with the government temephos programme was low, especially in rural areas. Despite an intervention encouraging non-chemical mosquito control, most households continued to believe that chemicals are the best control method.Trial registrationISRCTN:27581154.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4297-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Factores detrás de la renuencia al control vectorial del Dengue en tres distritos del Norte del Perú

Cited by 7 publications

References 16 publications

Barriers that limit the implementation of thermal fogging for the control of dengue in Colombia: a study of mixed methods

Barriers that limit the implementation of thermal fogging for the control of dengue in Colombia: a study of mixed methods

Cutaneous Manifestations of Zika in Peru

Coverage and beliefs about temephos application for control of dengue vectors and impact of a community-based prevention intervention: secondary analysis from the Camino Verde trial in Mexico

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About