ArticleMalaria journal2017
Health Impact Assessment of Indira Sagar Project: a paramount to studies on Water Development Projects.
Article in Malaria journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Challenges and Prospects for Integrating the Assessment of Health Impacts in the Licensing Process of Large Capital Project in Brazil.International journal of health policy and management · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVery limited studies on Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of Water Development Projects (WDP) in relation to mosquito-borne diseases have been carried out in India. The current study focuses on using HIA as a tool for finding impact of Indira Sagar Project, Madhya Pradesh on human health in relation to mosquito borne diseases, and emphasizing its incorporation as an integral part of any WDP.
methodsScreening, scoping, assessment, recommendation, reporting, and evaluation were carried out in selected study areas. Entomological, epidemiological, socio-economic and knowledge, attitudes and practices data related to malaria transmission in three dam components: Submergence (SUB), Command (CMD) and Resettlement and Rehabilitation (RR) colonies were generated for the period of January 2013-December 2014. Statistical analysis was attempted to compare data among dam components and to identify risk factors. Component-specific mitigation measures were suggested based on observations.
resultsAnopheles culicifacies was the dominating species in all three dam components and its man-hour density in CMD areas was higher compared to SUB and RR. The odds of finding a positive malaria case was much higher in CMD compared to SUB (OR 1.24, CI 95% 0.71-2.43) and RR (OR 5.48, CI 95% 0.73-40.63). Respondents of CMD stated more previous episodes of malaria (81.8%) compared to RR (61.4%) and SUB (55.7%). The canonical discriminant analysis concluded that distance from reservoir/Indira Sagar canal had the highest discriminating ability of malaria cases in different components followed by treatment-seeking behaviour and malaria history. The analysis identified these risk factors with 70% accuracy.
conclusionEngineering manipulations may be carried out in CMD areas to control seepage and RR colonies should be established beyond 3 km from reservoir/Indira Sagar canal considering the flight range of A. culicifacies. Strengthening of surveillance with early detection and complete treatment was recommended for CMD areas. To avoid future transmission in other areas and projects HIA should be carried out at planning stage for planning better control activities.
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.