Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25604767›Full record

Trial reportTransactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene2015

Development of a community-based intervention for the control of Chagas disease based on peridomestic animal management: an eco-bio-social perspective.

Sandra M De Urioste-Stone, Pamela M Pennington, Elizabeth Pellecer, Teresa M Aguilar, Gabriela Samayoa, Hugo D Perdomo, Hugo Enríquez, José G Juárez

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sandra M De Urioste-StoneCentro de Estudios en Salud, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala 01015, Guatemala.
Pamela M PenningtonCentro de Estudios en Salud, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala 01015, Guatemala pamelap@uvg.edu.gt.
Elizabeth PellecerCentro de Estudios en Salud, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala 01015, Guatemala.
Teresa M AguilarCentro de Estudios en Salud, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala 01015, Guatemala.
Gabriela SamayoaCentro de Estudios en Salud, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala 01015, Guatemala.
Hugo D PerdomoCentro de Estudios en Salud, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala 01015, Guatemala.
Hugo EnríquezCentro de Estudios en Salud, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala 01015, Guatemala.
José G JuárezCentro de Estudios en Salud, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala 01015, Guatemala.
Universidad del Valle de Guatemala · GT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntegrated vector management strategies depend on local eco-bio-social conditions, community participation, political will and inter-sectorial partnership. Previously identified risk factors for persistent Triatoma dimidiata infestation include the presence of rodents and chickens, tiled roofs, dirt floors, partial wall plastering and dog density.

methodsA community-based intervention was developed and implemented based on cyclical stakeholder and situational analyses. Intervention implementation and evaluation combined participatory action research and cluster randomized pre-test post-test experimental designs. The intervention included modified insecticide application, education regarding Chagas disease and risk factors, and participatory rodent control.

resultsAt final evaluation there was no significant difference in post-test triatomine infestation between intervention and control, keeping pre-test rodent and triatomine infestations constant. Knowledge levels regarding Chagas disease and prevention practices including rodent control, chicken management and health service access increased significantly only in intervention communities. The odds of nymph infection and rat infestation were 8.3 and 1.9-fold higher in control compared to intervention communities, respectively.

conclusionVector control measures without reservoir control are insufficient to reduce transmission risk in areas with persistent triatomine infestation. This integrated vector management program can complement house improvement initiatives by prioritizing households with risk factors such as tiled roofs. Requirement for active participation and multi-sectorial coordination poses implementation challenges.

Indexed as

AnimalsChagas DiseaseChickensCommunity ParticipationDog DiseasesDogsEnvironmental ExposureGuatemalaHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHousingHumansInsect ControlInsecticidesPoultry DiseasesRatsRisk FactorsInsecticidesCluster randomizedParticipatory action researchPRECEDE-PROCEEDRodent controlVector control

Identifiers

PMID25604767
PMCPMC4299527
OpenAlexW2126075033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.