Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28878549›Full record

ReviewTropical medicine and health2017

Risk perceptions, attitudes, and knowledge of chikungunya among the public and health professionals: a systematic review.

Tricia Corrin, Lisa Waddell, Judy Greig, Ian Young, Catherine Hierlihy, Mariola Mascarenhas

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Tropical medicine and health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Evidence map of strategies for preventing and controllingRevista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Chikungunya: risks for travellers.Journal of travel medicine · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Narrative Review on Health-EDRM Primary Prevention Measures for Vector-Borne Diseases.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Review
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tricia CorrinPublic Health Risk Sciences Division, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, ON Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5514-1589
Lisa WaddellPublic Health Risk Sciences Division, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, ON Canada.
Judy GreigPublic Health Risk Sciences Division, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, ON Canada.
Ian YoungSchool of Occupational and Public Health, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON Canada.
Catherine HierlihyPublic Health Risk Sciences Division, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, ON Canada.
Mariola MascarenhasPublic Health Risk Sciences Division, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, ON Canada.
Public Health Agency of Canada · CAToronto Metropolitan University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, attention to chikungunya has increased due to its spread into previously non-endemic areas. Since there is no available treatment or vaccine, most intervention strategies focus on mosquito bite prevention and mosquito control, which require community involvement to be successful. Thus, our objective was to systematically review the global primary literature on the risk perceptions, attitudes, and knowledge of chikungunya among the public and health professionals to inform future research and improve our understanding on which intervention strategies are likely to be successful.

methodsPotentially relevant articles were identified through a standardized systematic review (SR) process consisting of the following steps: comprehensive search strategy in seven databases (Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, CAB, LILACS, Agricola, and Cochrane) and a grey literature search of public health organizations, relevance screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. Two independent reviewers performed each step. Reporting of this SR follows PRISMA reporting guidelines.

resultsThirty-seven relevant articles were identified. The majority of the articles were published since 2011 (83.8%) and reported on studies conducted in Asia (48.7%) and the Indian Ocean Islands (24.3%). The results were separated into four categories: general knowledge and perceptions on chikungunya; perceptions on the risk and severity of chikungunya; knowledge of chikungunya-harboring vectors and transmission; and knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes on mitigation practices. Overall, the systematic review found that risk perceptions, attitudes, and knowledge of chikungunya among the public and health professionals vary across populations and countries and knowledge is higher in areas that have experienced an outbreak.

conclusionThe results suggest that most of the affected populations in this study do not understand mosquito borne diseases or chikungunya and are therefore less likely to protect themselves from mosquito bites. While more research is required to improve the generalizability of this dataset, it appears that a lack of knowledge is an important barrier for motivating community level interventions and personal protection against mosquitoes.

Indexed as

AttitudesChikungunyaKnowledgePerceptionsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28878549
PMCPMC5582396
OpenAlexW2739637256

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.