Health-Education Package to Prevent Worm Infections in Chinese Schoolchildren

Health-Education Package to Prevent Worm Infections in Chinese Schoolchildren
复制标题

DOI:
10.1056/nejmoa1204885
复制
发表时间:
2013-04-25
影响因子:
158.5
通讯作者:
McManus, Donald P.
McManus, Donald P.
中科院分区:
医学1区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Bieri, Franziska A.;Gray, Darren J.;McManus, Donald P.

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

土壤传播的蠕虫是全球人类感染的最普遍来源之一。我们确定了在中国湖南省临湘市农村学校的教育包的效果,这些蠕虫是流行的。干预的目的是增加知识土壤传播的蠕虫,诱导行为的变化,并减少infection.METHODSWe进行了单盲,不匹配,集群随机干预试验,涉及1718名儿童,9至10岁,在38所学校的过程中的1个学年。学校被随机分配到健康教育包,其中包括一个卡通视频,或控制包,其中只涉及健康教育海报的显示。在干预前后对感染率、土传蠕虫知识(通过问卷调查评估)和洗手行为进行了评估。在基线时对所有参与者和在学年结束时的随访评估中发现对土壤传播的蠕虫感染呈阳性的所有儿童施用阿苯达唑。在随访评估中,蠕虫知识的平均得分,计算为问卷上总共43分的百分比,干预组比对照组高90%(63.3vs.33.4,P
BACKGROUNDSoil-transmitted helminths are among the most prevalent sources of human infections globally. We determined the effect of an educational package at rural schools in Linxiang City District, Hunan province, China, where these worms are prevalent. The intervention aimed to increase knowledge about soil-transmitted helminths, induce behavioral change, and reduce the rate of infection.METHODSWe conducted a single-blind, unmatched, cluster-randomized intervention trial involving 1718 children, 9 to 10 years of age, in 38 schools over the course of 1 school year. Schools were randomly assigned to the health-education package, which included a cartoon video, or to a control package, which involved only the display of a health-education poster. Infection rates, knowledge about soil-transmitted helminths (as assessed with the use of a questionnaire), and hand-washing behavior were assessed before and after the intervention. Albendazole was administered in all the participants at baseline and in all the children who were found to be positive for infection with soil-transmitted helminths at the follow-up assessment at the end of the school year.RESULTSAt the follow-up assessment, the mean score for the knowledge of helminths, calculated as a percentage of a total of 43 points on a questionnaire, was 90% higher in the intervention group than in the control group (63.3 vs. 33.4, P