Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31146722›Full record

Observational studyBMC public health2019

Barriers that limit the implementation of thermal fogging for the control of dengue in Colombia: a study of mixed methods.

Andrés F Usuga, Lina M Zuluaga-Idárraga, Natalia Alvarez, Raúl Rojo, Enrique Henao, Guillermo L Rúa-Uribe

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrés F UsugaGrupo Epidemiología, Linea enfermedades infecciosas, Facultad Nacional de Salud Pública, Universidad de Antioquia, Calle 62 # 52-60, Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia. felipeusuga98@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1504-8627
Lina M Zuluaga-IdárragaGrupo Salud y Ambiente, Facultad Nacional de Salud Pública, Universidad de Antioquia, Calle 62 # 52-59, Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia.
Natalia AlvarezGrupo de Investigación Diverser, Facultad de Educación, Universidad de Antioquia, Calle 62 # 52-59, Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia.
Raúl RojoSecretaría de Salud de Medellin, Carrera 53ª # 42-101 piso 10, Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia.
Enrique HenaoSecretaría de Salud de Medellin, Carrera 53ª # 42-101 piso 10, Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia.
Guillermo L Rúa-UribeGrupo Entomología Médica, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Antioquia, Carrera 51d # 62-29 Lab. 303, Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia.
Universidad de Antioquia · CO

Funding

World Health Organization (CH) Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases TDR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThermal fogging of Insecticides is a vector control strategy used by the Medellin Secretary of Health to combat dengue. This method is employed during outbreaks to curb populations of potentially infectious adult mosquitoes and interrupt transmission cycles. While this strategy has been used in Medellin since 2007, in some years it has not reduced dengue cases as expected. Difficulties in the implementation of fumigation strategies, such as lack of opportunity for treatment and public perception may be factors that limit its utility. The objective of this study was to identify barriers that hinder the implementation of thermal fogging, as well as attitudes and beliefs that prevent its acceptance.

methodsWe used a cross-sectional observational study of mixed methods carried out in neighborhoods prioritized for fumigation treatment in Medellin, Colombia. First, we assessed the timeliness of treatment by determining the latency period between reported dengue cases and the implementation of fumigation in response to those cases. Next, we administered structured questionnaires to residents in the area of fumigation treatments (n = 4455 homes) to quantify acceptance and rejection, as well as factors associated with rejection.

resultsThe median time between notification and treatment was 25 days (IQR 20.0-36.5). Fumigators were only able to treat 53.7% of total households scheduled for treatment; 9.6% rejected treatment, and treatment teams were unable to fumigate the remaining 36.7% of homes due to absent residents, no adults being present, and other reasons. The most frequent causes for rejection were residents being busy at the time of treatment (33.1%) and no interest in the treatment (24.5%). Other reasons for rejection include the perceptions that fumigation does not control pests other than mosquitoes (4.3%), that no mosquitoes were present in the home (3.3%), and that fumigation affects human health (3.1%).

conclusionsThe high percentage of houses where it was not possible to perform fumigation limits control of the vector. Future strategies should consider more flexible treatment schedules and incorporate informational messages to educate residents about the safety and importance of treatment.

Indexed as

AdultColombiaCross-Sectional StudiesDengueFamily CharacteristicsFemaleFumigationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInsecticidesMaleMiddle AgedMosquito ControlMosquito VectorsResidence CharacteristicsSurveys and QuestionnairesInsecticidesAcceptabilityAedes aegyptiDengueFumigationImplementation researchThermal fogging

Identifiers

PMID31146722
PMCPMC6543676
OpenAlexW2947199530

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.