Implementation of guppy fish (Poecilia reticulata), and a novel larvicide (Pyriproxyfen) product (Sumilarv 2MR) for dengue control in Cambodia: A qualitative study of acceptability, sustainability and community engagement.
Adult
Aedes
Animals
Cambodia
Dengue
/ prevention & control
Female
Health Education
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Humans
Insecticides
/ administration & dosage
Interviews as Topic
Male
Middle Aged
Mosquito Control
/ methods
Mosquito Vectors
Poecilia
/ growth & development
Pyridines
/ administration & dosage
Young Adult
Journal
PLoS neglected tropical diseases
ISSN: 1935-2735
Titre abrégé: PLoS Negl Trop Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101291488
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2019
11 2019
Historique:
received:
27
05
2019
accepted:
05
11
2019
revised:
02
12
2019
pubmed:
19
11
2019
medline:
12
2
2020
entrez:
19
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In Cambodia dengue vector control activities are focused on larviciding with temephos and pyrethroid based adulticide sprays to which Aedes have been shown to be increasingly resistant. A cluster randomized trial assessed the impact of using biological control tools (guppy fish, pyriproxyfen (PPF), and Communication for Behavioral Impact (COMBI) activities in combination), which would be used in a value comparison to traditional chemical control tools. Given these new intervention methods, a qualitative assessment was designed in order to represent the quality of understanding, acceptance, and implementation by participants. A total of 103 participants in 12 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and nine In-Depth Interviews (IDIs) were included in the study. The majority of participants in intervention villages (50 out of 80) preferred guppy fish over other vector control methods due to ease of use and rearing, quick reproduction and propensity to eat larvae. A substantial number of participants (11 out of 40) in intervention villages with PPF favored it due to long-lasting effectiveness, lack of smell and easy maintenance. Participants showed high demand for both interventions and were willing to pay between 100-500 riel (0.03-0.13 USD). Nearly all participants perceived that the interventions resulted in a reduction in Aedes mosquitos (both adults and immatures) and dengue cases. The presence of larvae in the water despite the use of PPF was a source of concern for some participants, although this was overcome in some cases with proper health education through health volunteers. Interpersonal communication through health volunteers was the most favorite method of transmitting prevention messages. The community led COMBI strategy resulted in high acceptance and perceived effectiveness of the interventions in target villages. Health volunteers are an effective and accepted channel of communication to engage communities, disseminate information and promote behavioral change at the household and community level. If shown effective through corresponding entomological surveys, the interventions should be continued and further strengthened to ensure they are accessible, available and affordable.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In Cambodia dengue vector control activities are focused on larviciding with temephos and pyrethroid based adulticide sprays to which Aedes have been shown to be increasingly resistant. A cluster randomized trial assessed the impact of using biological control tools (guppy fish, pyriproxyfen (PPF), and Communication for Behavioral Impact (COMBI) activities in combination), which would be used in a value comparison to traditional chemical control tools. Given these new intervention methods, a qualitative assessment was designed in order to represent the quality of understanding, acceptance, and implementation by participants.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
A total of 103 participants in 12 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and nine In-Depth Interviews (IDIs) were included in the study. The majority of participants in intervention villages (50 out of 80) preferred guppy fish over other vector control methods due to ease of use and rearing, quick reproduction and propensity to eat larvae. A substantial number of participants (11 out of 40) in intervention villages with PPF favored it due to long-lasting effectiveness, lack of smell and easy maintenance. Participants showed high demand for both interventions and were willing to pay between 100-500 riel (0.03-0.13 USD). Nearly all participants perceived that the interventions resulted in a reduction in Aedes mosquitos (both adults and immatures) and dengue cases. The presence of larvae in the water despite the use of PPF was a source of concern for some participants, although this was overcome in some cases with proper health education through health volunteers. Interpersonal communication through health volunteers was the most favorite method of transmitting prevention messages.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE
The community led COMBI strategy resulted in high acceptance and perceived effectiveness of the interventions in target villages. Health volunteers are an effective and accepted channel of communication to engage communities, disseminate information and promote behavioral change at the household and community level. If shown effective through corresponding entomological surveys, the interventions should be continued and further strengthened to ensure they are accessible, available and affordable.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31738759
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007907
pii: PNTD-D-19-00842
pmc: PMC6886868
doi:
Substances chimiques
Insecticides
0
Pyridines
0
pyriproxyfen
3Q9VOR705O
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0007907Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R010161/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K012126/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002 Feb;56(2):148-52
pubmed: 11812816
Biol Lett. 2016 Oct;12(10):
pubmed: 28120806
Paediatr Int Child Health. 2012 May;32 Suppl 1:10-3
pubmed: 22668443
BMC Public Health. 2010 Aug 31;10:521
pubmed: 20807395
Environ Entomol. 2007 Jun;36(3):506-11
pubmed: 17540057
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 Apr 25;13(4):e0007204
pubmed: 31022178
Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Aug 20;5:299-309
pubmed: 23990732
BMJ. 2009 Jun 09;338:b1959
pubmed: 19509031
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2008 Sep;39(5):822-6
pubmed: 19058575
Pathog Glob Health. 2012 Dec;106(8):461-8
pubmed: 23318238
Front Immunol. 2014 Jun 11;5:280
pubmed: 24966859
Trop Biomed. 2013 Jun;30(2):220-30
pubmed: 23959487
Trials. 2019 Jun 6;20(1):329
pubmed: 31171041
Trop Med Int Health. 2015 Sep;20(9):1239-1256
pubmed: 25962851
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 Feb 16;12(2):e0006268
pubmed: 29451879
Nature. 2013 Apr 25;496(7446):504-7
pubmed: 23563266
Asia Pac J Public Health. 2018 Mar;30(2):158-166
pubmed: 29502428
Trials. 2017 Aug 4;18(1):367
pubmed: 28778174
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1992 Nov-Dec;86(6):693
pubmed: 1287947
Acta Trop. 2007 Feb;101(2):139-46
pubmed: 17291439
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2007 Dec 05;1(3):e143
pubmed: 18160981
Western Pac Surveill Response J. 2011 Jun 30;2(2):9-16
pubmed: 23908883
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2012 Jan;43(1):29-33
pubmed: 23082551
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2007 Jan;101(1):56-63
pubmed: 16824565
J Vector Ecol. 2008 Jun;33(1):139-44
pubmed: 18697316
Malar J. 2017 Oct 13;16(1):412
pubmed: 29029614