Social capital is associated with lower mosquito vector indices: secondary analysis from a cluster randomised controlled trial of community mobilisation for dengue prevention in Mexico.
Aedes
/ virology
Animals
Community Health Services
/ organization & administration
Dengue
/ prevention & control
Female
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Humans
Male
Mexico
Mosquito Control
/ organization & administration
Mosquito Vectors
/ virology
Nicaragua
Residence Characteristics
Social Capital
Community mobilisation
Dengue
Factor analysis
Social capital
Vector indices
Journal
Population health metrics
ISSN: 1478-7954
Titre abrégé: Popul Health Metr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101178411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 12 2019
10 12 2019
Historique:
received:
01
02
2018
accepted:
20
11
2019
entrez:
12
12
2019
pubmed:
12
12
2019
medline:
24
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Control of the Aedes aegypti mosquito is central to reducing the risk of dengue, zika, chikungunya, and yellow fever. Randomised controlled trials, including the Camino Verde trial in Mexico and Nicaragua, demonstrate the convincing impact of community mobilisation interventions on vector indices. These interventions might work through building social capital but little is known about the relationship between social capital and vector indices. A secondary analysis used data collected from 45 intervention clusters and 45 control clusters in the impact survey of the Mexican arm of the Camino Verde cluster randomised controlled trial. Factor analysis combined responses to questions about aspects of social capital to create a social capital index with four constructs, their weighted averages then combined into a single scale. We categorised households as having high or low social capital based on their score on this scale. We examined associations between social capital and larval and pupal vector indices, taking account of the effects of other variables in a multivariate analysis. We report associations as odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. The four social capital constructs were involvement, participation, investment, and communication. Among the 10,112 households, those in rural communities were much more likely to have a high social capital score (OR 4.51, 95% CIca 3.26-6.26). Households in intervention sites had higher social capital, although the association was not significant at the 5% level. Households with high social capital were more likely to be negative for larvae or pupae (OR 1.38, 95% CIca 1.12-1.69) and for pupae specifically (OR 1.37, 95% CIca 1.08-1.74). There was interaction between intervention status and social capital; in multivariate analysis, a combined variable of intervention/high social capital remained associated with larvae or pupae (ORa l.56, 95% CIca 1.19-2.04) and with pupae specifically (ORa 1.65, 95% CIca 1.20-2.28). This is the first report of an association of high social capital with low vector indices. Our findings support the idea that the Camino Verde community mobilisation intervention worked partly through an interaction with social capital. Understanding such interactions may help to maximise the impact of future community mobilisation interventions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Control of the Aedes aegypti mosquito is central to reducing the risk of dengue, zika, chikungunya, and yellow fever. Randomised controlled trials, including the Camino Verde trial in Mexico and Nicaragua, demonstrate the convincing impact of community mobilisation interventions on vector indices. These interventions might work through building social capital but little is known about the relationship between social capital and vector indices.
METHODS
A secondary analysis used data collected from 45 intervention clusters and 45 control clusters in the impact survey of the Mexican arm of the Camino Verde cluster randomised controlled trial. Factor analysis combined responses to questions about aspects of social capital to create a social capital index with four constructs, their weighted averages then combined into a single scale. We categorised households as having high or low social capital based on their score on this scale. We examined associations between social capital and larval and pupal vector indices, taking account of the effects of other variables in a multivariate analysis. We report associations as odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
The four social capital constructs were involvement, participation, investment, and communication. Among the 10,112 households, those in rural communities were much more likely to have a high social capital score (OR 4.51, 95% CIca 3.26-6.26). Households in intervention sites had higher social capital, although the association was not significant at the 5% level. Households with high social capital were more likely to be negative for larvae or pupae (OR 1.38, 95% CIca 1.12-1.69) and for pupae specifically (OR 1.37, 95% CIca 1.08-1.74). There was interaction between intervention status and social capital; in multivariate analysis, a combined variable of intervention/high social capital remained associated with larvae or pupae (ORa l.56, 95% CIca 1.19-2.04) and with pupae specifically (ORa 1.65, 95% CIca 1.20-2.28).
CONCLUSION
This is the first report of an association of high social capital with low vector indices. Our findings support the idea that the Camino Verde community mobilisation intervention worked partly through an interaction with social capital. Understanding such interactions may help to maximise the impact of future community mobilisation interventions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31823786
doi: 10.1186/s12963-019-0199-3
pii: 10.1186/s12963-019-0199-3
pmc: PMC6902442
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
18Références
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Mar;128:95-104
pubmed: 25596373
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959 Apr;22(4):719-48
pubmed: 13655060
BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 Dec 21;11 Suppl 2:S15
pubmed: 22376353
Pathog Glob Health. 2012 Dec;106(8):488-96
pubmed: 23318241
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 6;12(2):e0171565
pubmed: 28166305
BMJ. 2015 Jul 08;351:h3267
pubmed: 26156323
Ther Adv Vaccines. 2013 Nov;1(4):144-52
pubmed: 24757521
BMC Public Health. 2017 May 30;17(Suppl 1):398
pubmed: 28699562
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2000 Jan;62(1):11-8
pubmed: 10761719
Am J Public Health. 1999 Aug;89(8):1187-93
pubmed: 10432904
MEDICC Rev. 2010 Winter;12(1):41-7
pubmed: 20387334
Am J Epidemiol. 1999 May 15;149(10):898-907
pubmed: 10342798
Health Policy Plan. 2001 Sep;16(3):221-30
pubmed: 11527862
Ann Behav Med. 2001 Summer;23(3):177-85
pubmed: 11495218
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2015 Feb;109(2):99-105
pubmed: 25604760
Health Place. 2001 Sep;7(3):163-77
pubmed: 11439253
Int J Equity Health. 2019 Jan 18;18(1):12
pubmed: 30658637
BMC Public Health. 2013 Jun 27;13:613
pubmed: 23805881
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Jul;61(1):185-98
pubmed: 15847971
Gerontologist. 2013 Feb;53(1):142-52
pubmed: 22547088
Soc Sci Med. 2000 Sep;51(6):843-57
pubmed: 10972429
BMC Public Health. 2012 Feb 10;12:116
pubmed: 22325740
Int J Health Geogr. 2006 Jan 03;5:1
pubmed: 16390549
Sociol Health Illn. 2017 Jan;39(1):5-29
pubmed: 27813121
Science. 1997 Aug 15;277(5328):918-24
pubmed: 9252316
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2009 Feb;33(1):7-16
pubmed: 19236353
BMC Public Health. 2017 May 30;17(Suppl 1):397
pubmed: 28699556
Soc Sci Med. 1998 Nov;47(9):1181-8
pubmed: 9783861
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015 Oct;69(10):1021-8
pubmed: 26179447
Soc Sci Med. 2018 Sep;212:203-218
pubmed: 30048843
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2012 May;106(5):315-21
pubmed: 22465423
Pathog Glob Health. 2012 Dec;106(8):479-87
pubmed: 23318240
J Epidemiol. 2012;22(3):179-87
pubmed: 22447212
BMC Public Health. 2017 May 30;17(Suppl 1):403
pubmed: 28699561
Vaccine. 2011 Sep 23;29(42):7276-84
pubmed: 21781998
Clin Infect Dis. 2007 Mar 15;44(6):850-6
pubmed: 17304460
BMC Public Health. 2017 May 30;17(Suppl 1):384
pubmed: 28699552