Conditional trust: Community perceptions of drone use in malaria control in Zanzibar.
Community perceptions
Drones
Malaria
Public health
Unmanned aerial vehicles
Vector control
Journal
Technology in society
ISSN: 0160-791X
Titre abrégé: Technol Soc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100972148
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
22
10
2021
revised:
13
01
2022
accepted:
13
01
2022
entrez:
18
3
2022
pubmed:
19
3
2022
medline:
19
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The potential of drones to support public health interventions, such as malaria vector control, is beginning to be realised. Although permissions from civil aviation authorities are often needed for drone operations, the communities over which they fly tend to be ignored: How do affected communities perceive drones? Is drone deployment accepted by communities? How should communities be engaged? An initiative in Zanzibar, United Republic of Tanzania is using drones to map malarial mosqutio breeding sites for targeting larval source management interventions. A community engagement framework was developed, based on participatory research, across three communities where drones will be deployed, to map local perceptions of drone use. Costs associated with this exercise were collated. A total of 778 participants took part in the study spanning a range of community and stakeholder groups. Overall there was a high level of acceptance and trust in drone use for public health research purposes. Despite this level of trust for drone operations this support was conditional: There was a strong desire for pre-deployment information across all stakeholder groups and regular updates of this information to be given about drone activities, as well as consent from community level governance. The cost of the perception study and resulting engagement strategy was US$24,411. Mapping and responding to community perceptions should be a pre-requisite for drone activity in all public health applications and requires funding. The findings made in this study were used to design a community engagement plan providing a simple but effective means of building and maintaining trust and acceptability. We recommend this an essential investment.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The potential of drones to support public health interventions, such as malaria vector control, is beginning to be realised. Although permissions from civil aviation authorities are often needed for drone operations, the communities over which they fly tend to be ignored: How do affected communities perceive drones? Is drone deployment accepted by communities? How should communities be engaged?
Methods
UNASSIGNED
An initiative in Zanzibar, United Republic of Tanzania is using drones to map malarial mosqutio breeding sites for targeting larval source management interventions. A community engagement framework was developed, based on participatory research, across three communities where drones will be deployed, to map local perceptions of drone use. Costs associated with this exercise were collated.
Results
UNASSIGNED
A total of 778 participants took part in the study spanning a range of community and stakeholder groups. Overall there was a high level of acceptance and trust in drone use for public health research purposes. Despite this level of trust for drone operations this support was conditional: There was a strong desire for pre-deployment information across all stakeholder groups and regular updates of this information to be given about drone activities, as well as consent from community level governance. The cost of the perception study and resulting engagement strategy was US$24,411.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Mapping and responding to community perceptions should be a pre-requisite for drone activity in all public health applications and requires funding. The findings made in this study were used to design a community engagement plan providing a simple but effective means of building and maintaining trust and acceptability. We recommend this an essential investment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35299834
doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101895
pii: S0160-791X(22)00036-7
pmc: PMC8919376
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
101895Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Références
JAMA. 2017 Jun 13;317(22):2332-2334
pubmed: 28609525
Am J Bioeth. 2011 Aug;11(8):27-9
pubmed: 21806434
Parasit Vectors. 2015 Jan 22;8:41
pubmed: 25608875
Glob Bioeth. 2019 Dec 20;31(1):1-12
pubmed: 32002019
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2017 May 26;372(1721):
pubmed: 28396476
Med Group Manage J. 1996 Mar-Apr;43(2):40, 42-8, 50-1
pubmed: 10155945
J Family Med Prim Care. 2019 Feb;8(2):342-346
pubmed: 30984635
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 Jan 17;13(1):e0007105
pubmed: 30653491
Malar J. 2015 May 17;14:205
pubmed: 25982190
Science. 2018 Aug 10;361(6402):554-556
pubmed: 30093590
BMC Med. 2019 Jan 22;17(1):14
pubmed: 30665398
J Med Ethics. 2004 Apr;30(2):204-6
pubmed: 15082819
Sci Eng Ethics. 2016 Oct;22(5):1391-1418
pubmed: 26538352
BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Dec 13;15:84
pubmed: 25495054
Malar J. 2021 May 31;20(1):244
pubmed: 34059053
Trends Parasitol. 2014 Nov;30(11):514-9
pubmed: 25443854
Parasit Vectors. 2017 Jan 14;10(1):29
pubmed: 28088225
Parasit Vectors. 2013 Mar 28;6:82
pubmed: 23537463