ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Barriers and facilitators to dengue prevention strategies in Bangladesh: a scoping review with comparative analysis of other dengue-prone regions.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDengue fever poses a major public health issue in tropical and subtropical areas, with Bangladesh facing a significant rise in dengue cases during the 2023 outbreak. Increasing risks include elements like fast urbanisation, climate change, and inadequate healthcare infrastructure. Therefore, a scoping review was conducted to clearly understand the current dengue prevention efforts by mapping existing prevention strategies in Bangladesh and other dengue-prone regions, to compare country-specific barriers and facilitators, and to generate evidence-based recommendations for Bangladesh and other similar contexts.
methodsUsing the Arksey and O’Malley framework, a methodical search was done across PubMed and Scopus for peer-reviewed papers as well as Google andinstitutional websites for grey literature from 2000 to 2024. The PCC (Population, Concept, Context) framework guided the inclusion of studies ondengue prevention strategies, barriers, and facilitators in Bangladesh and comparable dengue-prone regions. Data from 29 peer-reviewed publications and 18 grey literature sources were synthesised, thematically analysed, and reported according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.
resultsIn Bangladesh, dengue prevention mainly focuses on community education and insecticide-based vector control. However, there are barriers like persistent misconceptions (e.g. breeding of Aedes in dirty water), insecticide resistance, limited and fragmented financing, and weak intersectoral coordination. In contrast, nations like Singapore and Brazil have used more successful multi-sectoral strategies, including integrated surveillance and infrastructure improvements to eliminate standing water, respectively. Localised clean-up campaigns in Thailand show that community involvement has become crucial in preventing dengue. Though these strategies show promise, innovative ideas like Wolbachia biocontrol must be scaled up.
conclusionBangladesh should adopt a context-specific, multi-sector strategy that includes community-led education with integrated surveillance, regulatory frameworks on housing and waste management, and a diversified financing mechanism to enhance dengue prevention efforts. Clear political commitment, tailored policy development, and sustained funding are essential to reduce dengue transmission and the severity of future outbreaks. CLINICAL TRIAL: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.