Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28699561›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2017

Mobilising communities for Aedes aegypti control: the SEPA approach.

Robert J Ledogar, Jorge Arosteguí, Carlos Hernández-Alvarez, Arcadio Morales-Perez, Elizabeth Nava-Aguilera, José Legorreta-Soberanis, Harold Suazo-Laguna, Alejandro Belli, Jorge Laucirica, Josefina Coloma and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

12 authors.

Robert J LedogarCIETinternational, New York, NY, USA. rledogar@ciet.org.
Jorge ArosteguíCIET in Nicaragua, Managua, Nicaragua.
Carlos Hernández-AlvarezCIET in Nicaragua, Managua, Nicaragua.
Arcadio Morales-PerezCentro de Investigación de Enfermedades Tropicales (CIET), Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero, Acapulco, Mexico.
Elizabeth Nava-AguileraCentro de Investigación de Enfermedades Tropicales (CIET), Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero, Acapulco, Mexico.
José Legorreta-SoberanisCentro de Investigación de Enfermedades Tropicales (CIET), Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero, Acapulco, Mexico.
Harold Suazo-LagunaCIET in Nicaragua, Managua, Nicaragua.
Alejandro BelliCIET in Nicaragua, Managua, Nicaragua.
Jorge LauciricaInternational Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Mexico City, Mexico.
Josefina ColomaDivision of Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Eva HarrisDivision of Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Neil AnderssonCentro de Investigación de Enfermedades Tropicales (CIET), Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero, Acapulco, Mexico.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Camino Verde (the Green Way) is an evidence-based community mobilisation tool for prevention of dengue and other mosquito-borne viral diseases. Its effectiveness was demonstrated in a cluster-randomised controlled trial conducted in 2010-2013 in Nicaragua and Mexico. The common approach that brought functional consistency to the Camino Verde intervention in both Mexico and Nicaragua is Socialisation of Evidence for Participatory Action (SEPA). In this article, we explain the SEPA concept and its theoretical origins, giving examples of its previous application in different countries and contexts. We describe how the approach was used in the Camino Verde intervention, with details that show commonalities and differences in the application of the approach in Mexico and Nicaragua. We discuss issues of cost, replicability and sustainability, and comment on which components of the intervention were most important to its success. In complex interventions, multiple components act in synergy to produce change. Among key factors in the success of Camino Verde were the use of community volunteers called brigadistas, the house-to-house visits they conducted, the use of evidence derived from the communities themselves, and community ownership of the undertaking. Communities received the intervention by random assignment; dengue was not necessarily their greatest concern. The very nature of the dengue threat dictated many of the actions that needed to be taken at household and neighbourhood levels to control it. But within these parameters, communities exercised a large degree of control over the intervention and displayed considerable ingenuity in the process.

trial registrationISRCTN27581154 .

Indexed as

AedesCommunity ParticipationMosquito ControlAnimalsDengueFamily CharacteristicsHumansInsect VectorsMexicoNicaraguaResidence CharacteristicsSocializationVolunteersAedes aegyptiCommunityCommunity ownershipComplex interventionsDengueSepa

Identifiers

PMID28699561
PMCPMC5506583

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.