Zika virus knowledge, contraception use, and lessons learned from a Dominican Republic pilot study

Abstract

Objective To assess knowledge of the Zika virus (ZIKV), use of contraceptives, and sources of health information in rural communities in the Dominican Republic. Methods Over 4 days in March 2017, a research team traveled to four rural communities in the Dominican Republic to provide healthcare services. Overall, 90 men and women consented to a voluntary verbal 12‐question survey. Results Of the participants, 55% were not certain whether ZIKV is transmitted sexually; 75% of participants were either not sure or thought ZIKV was not present in their community. Charlas (informal discussions led by community health workers) were cited as the most common source for public health information. Prevalence of contraceptive use was 26.6% hormonal and 1.1% long‐acting reversible contraception (LARC); 30.0% cited no use of contraception. Conclusion Significant deficits in ZIKV knowledge, underutilization of LARCs, and socioeconomic factors exist that constrain the application of WHO recommendations for preventing ZIKV infection. Additional and more robust surveys are needed to assess public health education and interventions, critical for disease prevention in communities facing current and future epidemics.

Community participation and community engagement in the response to the Zika-Virus-Outbreak in Latin America 2015-2019 - A Scoping Review

“…Of the 46 included documents, 45 were published in English and one in Spanish. Of the peer-reviewed documents there was heterogeneity in study designs (based on MMAT classification), which included twenty qualitative studies [8, 21-24, 26, 29, 32, 35, 36, 38, 47-54, 56] , nine cross-sectional mixed method studies [27, 30, 31, 37, 57-61] , one cluster randomised controlled trial [62] , four descriptive studies [63-66] two reviews [67, 68] , three surveys [34, 69, 70] , one cohort study [33] , one pre-post design study [71] , and, four opinion and commentary essays [28, 72-74] . The majority of the studies was performed in Brazil (n=10) and in Puerto Rico (n=6), moreover in Mexico (n=5) Colombia (n= 4), Peru (n=4), Dominican Republic (n=3), Guatemala (n=2), Honduras (n=2), Ecuador (n=2), Cuba (n=2), Nicaragua (n=1), French Guyana (n=1), Uruguay (n=2), Belize (n=1), Curacao (n=1) and Argentina (n=1).…”

“…[29-31, 61, 74] Many publications assessed the level of knowledge, healthcare barriers and sexual health care through interviews, focus groups and surveys. [8, 21-24, 26, 27, 36-38, 47, 52-54, 56, 60, 63, 70] The implemented public health projects can be summarized and categorized into four broad key topics: 1) Mosquito vector control initiatives, 2) Contraception and reproductive healthcare, 3) Family support programmes and 4) Assessment of knowledge, perception and barriers. Almost all studies reported intervention effectiveness and improvement or changes in behaviour.…”

“…Many publications did not describe active community engagement processes but gave an insight into attitudes towards Zika virus, personal protection measures and assessed understanding and acceptance among vulnerable population groups. [21-24, 26, 27, 38, 47, 52-54, 56, 60, 63, 70] Perspectives, expectations and experiences of pregnant women in healthcare service access, who had been diagnosed with Zika virus during their pregnancy and given birth to a baby with microcephaly, were examined in the Zika endemic area of Villavicencio in Colombia. [26] The study recommended to improve sexual and reproductive health education for adolescent women or women of childbearing age as well as for their male partners during prenatal follow-up consultations.…”

“…[13, 14, 39-43] Poverty, insufficient capability to respond to outbreaks and health inequity are the main risk factors for poor health and increase the burden of economic and social costs. [22][23][24][25][26][27][28] Insufficient access to healthcare services and information affects people´s health status, might lead to an increased risk of Zika virus transmission and could worsen the consequences of an epidemic outbreak. [22,25,26] As poverty affects reproductive health as well, disadvantaged families with low socioeconomic status, such as low educational background, income or unemployment, present the most vulnerable groups.…”