↓ Skip to main content

Coverage and beliefs about temephos application for control of dengue vectors and impact of a community-based prevention intervention: secondary analysis from the Camino Verde trial in Mexico

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Coverage and beliefs about temephos application for control of dengue vectors and impact of a community-based prevention intervention: secondary analysis from the Camino Verde trial in Mexico
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4297-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

José Legorreta-Soberanis, Sergio Paredes-Solís, Arcadio Morales-Pérez, Elizabeth Nava-Aguilera, Felipé René Serrano de los Santos, Belén Madeline Sánchez-Gervacio, Robert J. Ledogar, Anne Cockcroft, Neil Andersson

Abstract

Temephos in domestic water containers remains a mainstay of Latin American government programmes for control of Aedes aegypti and associated illnesses, including dengue. There is little published evidence about coverage of routine temephos programmes. A cluster randomised controlled trial of community mobilisation in Mexico and Nicaragua reduced vector indices, dengue infection, and clinical dengue cases. Secondary analysis from the Mexican arm of the trial examined temephos coverage and beliefs, and the impact of the trial on these outcomes. The trial impact survey in December 2012, in 10,491 households in 45 intervention and 45 control clusters, asked about visits from the temephos programme, retention of applied temephos, and views about temephos and mosquito control. Fieldworkers noted if temephos was present in water containers. Some 42.4% of rural and 20.7% of urban households reported no temephos programme visits within the last 12 months. Overall, 42.0% reported they had temephos placed in their water containers less than 3 months previously. Fieldworkers observed temephos in at least one container in 21.1% of households. Recent temephos application and observed temephos were both significantly more common in urban households, when other household variables were taken into account; in rural areas, smaller households were more likely to have temephos present. Most households (74.4%) did not think bathing with water containing temephos carried any health risk. Half (51%) believed drinking or cooking with such water could be harmful and 17.6% were unsure. Significantly fewer households in intervention sites (16.5%) than in control sites (26.0%) (Risk Difference - 0.095, 95% confidence interval - 0.182 to -0.009) had temephos observed in their water; more households in intervention clusters (41.8%) than in control clusters (31.6%) removed the applied temephos quickly. Although fewer households in intervention sites (82.7%) compared with control sites (86.7%) (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.067 to -0.013) agreed temephos and fumigation was the best way to avoid mosquitoes, the proportion believing this remained very high. Coverage with the government temephos programme was low, especially in rural areas. Despite an intervention encouraging non-chemical mosquito control, most households continued to believe that chemicals are the best control method. ISRCTN: 27581154 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 15%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Lecturer 6 6%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 36 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Environmental Science 5 5%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 40 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2017.
All research outputs
#20,434,884
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#13,988
of 14,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,192
of 316,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#252
of 262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,085 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 262 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.