Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29515913›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2018

Current strategies and successes in engaging women in vector control: a systematic review.

Jayleen K L Gunn, Kacey C Ernst, Katherine E Center, Kristi Bischoff, Annabelle V Nuñez, Megan Huynh, Amanda Okello, Mary H Hayden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Are Vulnerable Communities Thoroughly Informed on Mosquito Bio-Ecology and Burden?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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.

Jayleen K L GunnDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Kacey C ErnstDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Katherine E CenterResearch Department, BrightOutcome, Inc, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, USA.
Kristi BischoffDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Annabelle V NuñezUniversity of Arizona Health Sciences Library, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Megan HuynhDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Amanda OkelloDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Mary H HaydenResearch Applications Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionVector-borne diseases (VBDs) cause significant mortality and morbidity in low-income and middle-income countries and present a risk to high-income countries. Vector control programmes may confront social and cultural norms that impede their execution. Anecdotal evidence suggests that incorporating women in the design, delivery and adoption of health interventions increases acceptance and compliance. A better understanding of programmes that have attempted to increase women's involvement in vector control could help shape best practices. The objective of this systematic review was to assess and critically summarise evidence regarding the effectiveness of women participating in vector control.

methodsSeven databases were searched from inception to 21 December 2015. Two investigators independently reviewed all titles and abstracts for relevant articles. Grey literature was searched by assessing websites that focus on international development and vector control.

resultsIn total, 23 articles representing 17 unique studies were included in this review. Studies discussed the involvement of women in the control of vectors for malaria (n=10), dengue (n=8), human African trypanosomiasis (n=3), schistosomiasis (n=1) and a combination (malaria and schistosomiasis, n=1). Seven programmes were found in the grey literature or through personal communications. Available literature indicates that women can be successfully engaged in vector control programmes and, when given the opportunity, they can create and sustain businesses that aim to decrease the burden of VBDs in their communities.

conclusionThis systematic review demonstrated that women can be successfully engaged in vector control programmes at the community level. However, rigorous comparative effectiveness studies need to be conducted.

Indexed as

dengueinfections, diseases, disorders, injuriesmalariaprevention strategiessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29515913
PMCPMC5838394

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.