ArticleBMC public health2015
Evaluation of mass drug administration in the program to control imported lymphatic filariasis in Thailand.
Article in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lymphatic filariasis in Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Parasitology research · 2021Pooled it
- Factors associated with low coverage in mass drug administration for schistosomiasis in mobile populations in mali: a cross-sectional study.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Article
- Five years of post-validation surveillance of lymphatic filariasis in Thailand.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2023Article
- A Systematic Scoping Review on Migrant Health Coverage in Thailand.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2022Article
- Lymphatic filariasis elimination endgame in an urban Indian setting: the roles of surveillance and residual microfilaremia after mass drug administration.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2021Article
- Epidemiological screening and xenomonitoring for human lymphatic filariasis infection in select districts in the states of Maharashtra and Karnataka, India.Parasitology research · 2019Article
- Genomic Epidemiology in Filarial Nematodes: Transforming the Basis for Elimination Program Decisions.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Review
- Rapid progress towards elimination of lymphatic filariasis in endemic regions of Myanmar as a result of 16 years of anti-filarial activities (2001-2016).Tropical medicine and health · 2018Article
- Lymphatic Filariasis in Mainland Southeast Asia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence and Disease Burden.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMigration plays a major role in the emergence and resurgence of lymphatic filariasis (LF) in many countries. Because of the high prevalence of Imported Bancroftian Filariasis (IBF) caused by nocturnally periodic Wuchereria bancrofti and the intensive movement of immigrant workers from endemic areas, Thailand has implemented two doses of 6 mg/kg diethylcarbamazine (DEC) with interval of 6 months to prevent IBF. In areas where immigrants are very mobile, the administration of DEC may be compromised. This study aimed to evaluate DEC administration and its barriers in such areas.
methodsA cross-sectional study with two-stage stratified cluster sampling was conducted. We selected Myanmar immigrants aged >18 years from factory and fishery areas of Samut Sakhon Province for interview with a structured questionnaire. We also interviewed health personnel regarding the functions of the LF program and practice of DEC delivery among immigrants. Associations were measured by multiple logistic regression, at P <0.05.
resultsDEC coverage among the immigrants was 75 %, below the national target. All had received DEC only once during health examinations at general hospitals for work permit renewals. None of the health centers in each community provided DEC. Significant barriers to DEC access included being undocumented (adjusted OR = 74.23; 95 % CI = 26.32-209.34), unemployed (adjusted OR = 5.09; 95 % CI = 3.39-7.64), daily employed (adjusted OR = 4.33; 95 % CI = 2.91-6.46), short-term immigrant (adjusted OR = 1.62; 95 % CI = 1.04-2.52) and living in a fishery area (adjusted OR = 1.57; 95 % CI = 1.04-2.52). Incorrect perceptions about the side-effects of DEC also obstructed DEC access for Myanmar immigrants. All positive LF antigenic immigrants reported visiting and emigrating from LF-endemic areas.
conclusionHospital-based DEC administration was an inappropriate approach to DEC delivery in areas with highly mobile Myanmar immigrants. Incorporating health-center personnel in DEC delivery twice yearly and improving the perceptions of DEC side effects would likely increase DEC coverage among Myanmar immigrants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.