Impact Involving the Community in Entomological Surveillance of the Triatoma Infestans Vectorial Control

Abstract

BackgroundVectorial transmission is the principal way of Trypanosoma cruzi infection, the parasite that cause Chagas disease. In Argentina, Triatoma infestans is the principal vector, for this reason, vector control is the main strategy for the prevention of this illness. Provincial Program of Chagas La Rioja (PPCHLR) carries out entomological evaluation of domiciliary units (UD) and spraying those where T. infestans are found. The lack of government funds generated low visit frequency of PPCHLR, especially in areas with a low infestation that they were not prioritized. For this reason, seeking possible alternatives to complement control activities are necessary. Involving householders in entomologic evaluation would be a control alternative. The major objective was to determine the cost of entomological evaluation with and without community participation.Methods For entomological evaluation with community participation, 434 DU corresponding to nine localities of Castro Barros Department (CBD) were selected in November 2017. T. infestans infestation of DUs selected was determined involving the community in triatomines detection. Each householder was trained in the insect collection that were kept in labelled plastic bags and recovered after two weeks to analyse T. cruzi presence in laboratory. For entomological evaluation without community participation, PPCHLR data collected in February 2017 over 359 DU of CBD were used. Entomological evaluation costs with and without community participation over DU visited number, over DU evaluated number, and over DU sprayed were calculated and compared between methodologies. In addition, DU evaluated number out DU visited number was compared. The infestation in the area was 13.8%, with relative risk differences by zones. ResultsThe results showed that the triatomines did not show evidence of T. cruzi infection. Costs in relation to DU visited, to those evaluated and to those sprayed, were lowered with community participation (p< 0.05). In addition, a greater number of DU evaluated in relation to those visited as well as greater surface were covered with community participation. ConclusionThe participation of the community in the infestation survey is more efficient, allowing the spraying to be focused on infested houses and thus reducing costs and intervention times by PPCHLR.