Educational campaign versus malathion spraying for the control of Aedes aegypti in Colima, Mexico
Educational campaign versus malathion spraying for the control of Aedes aegypti in Colima, Mexico
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/jech.56.2.148
复制
发表时间：
2002-02-01
影响因子：
6.3
通讯作者：
Coll-Cárdenas, R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Espinoza-Gómez, F;Hernández-Suárez, CM;Coll-Cárdenas, R
目的：为了评估减少埃及伊蚊（登革热的主要传播媒介）繁殖地的教育活动的效果，并将其效果与超低量喷洒马拉硫磷的效果进行比较。设计：随机社区试验。设置：墨西哥科利马州科利马市。参与者：从城市西部随机选择的187户家庭的户主。数据：在干预前和干预后6个月，在每个房子里进行了昆虫学调查，以及知识，态度和做法（KAP）。干预措施包括教育运动单独（47家）;马拉硫磷喷雾超低容量单独（46家）;两种治疗同时（49家）和没有干预，或对照组（45家）。主要结果：全球平均阳性容器的房子（C+/C）从0.97减少到0.77。双向方差分析表明，这种减少在接受教育运动的家庭中更为明显（F=8.4，p 0.5），而两种治疗的联合显示出离散的负相互作用（F=6.52，p0.1）。结论：结果表明，教育宣传比化学喷洒更有效地减少了埃及伊蚊的滋生地，这两种处理方法的结合可能会降低其效率，这可能是因为喷洒产生了错误的保护期望。知识、态度和行为调查在定量评价消灭登革热病媒方案方面的价值似乎非常有限。
Objective: To evaluate the effect of an educational campaign for reducing the breeding places of Aedes aegypti, the principal vector of dengue; and to compare its effects with the ones obtained by spraying of malathion at ultralow volume.Design: Randomised community trial.Setting: Colima city, in the State of Colima, Mexico.Participants: Householders of 187 houses, randomly selected from the west sector of the city.Data: In each house, an entomological survey was done, as well as one for knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP), before the intervention and six months after. The intervention consisted of educational campaign alone (47 houses); malathion spraying at ultra low volume alone (46 houses); both treatments simultaneously (49 houses) and no intervention, or control group (45 houses).Main results: The global average of the positive containers by house (C+/C) was reduced from 0.97 to 0.77. A two way analysis of variance showed that this reduction was more apparent in the houses that received educational campaign (F=8.4, p0.5), while the combination of both treatments demonstrated a discrete negative interaction (F=6.52, p0.1).Conclusion: The results indicated that the educational campaign reduced the A aegypti breeding places more effectively than the use of chemicals spraying, and that the combination of both treatments can reduce its efficiency, possibly because of the false expectancy of protection that spraying creates. The KAP surveys seemed to have very limited value in evaluating quantitatively the programmes of eradication of the dengue vector.