Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40668796›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Stakeholder acceptance and attitudes toward dengue prevention: A study on fogging and autocidal traps techniques in Malaysia.

Noor Sharizad Rusly, Nur Asmadayana Hasim, Ahmad Firdhaus Arham, Latifah Amin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Noor Sharizad RuslyPusat Pengajian Citra Universiti, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6576-463X
Nur Asmadayana HasimPusat Pengajian Citra Universiti, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
Ahmad Firdhaus ArhamPusat Pengajian Citra Universiti, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6740-2077
Latifah AminInstitut Islam Hadhari, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ineffectiveness of current prevention efforts is underscored by the increasing number of dengue cases, emphasizing the necessity of innovative approaches. This investigation investigates the extent of stakeholder acceptability and attitudes toward the alternative autocidal trap method and the current fogging technique. The objective is to identify differences in community viewpoints regarding these control techniques among various stakeholder groups, including scientists and the public. Information was collected from two separate groups of individuals: scientists and the general people. A comprehensive survey assessed the level of tolerance and attitudes towards fogging and autocidal traps. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS software, specifically utilizing the one-way MANOVA test, to identify any significant variations in attitudes among various stakeholder groups. The results reveal significant discrepancies in the perceived danger level between the two groups since the public views fogging as a riskier activity than scientists. However, the groups had no significant difference in the reported benefits. Scientists exhibited a greater degree of endorsement for both fogging and autocidal traps when compared to the public. While the general population showed more openness towards fogging, scientists have shown a more balanced approval of both tactics. These insights are essential for policymakers and health practitioners as they inform the creation of more efficient, community-oriented initiatives to address the increasing prevalence of dengue cases.

Indexed as

DengueHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeMosquito ControlStakeholder ParticipationAdultAnimalsFemaleHumansMalaysiaMaleMiddle AgedPublic OpinionSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40668796
PMCPMC12266440

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.