↓ Skip to main content

Informed community mobilization for dengue prevention in households with and without a regular water supply: Secondary analysis from the Camino Verde trial in Nicaragua

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Informed community mobilization for dengue prevention in households with and without a regular water supply: Secondary analysis from the Camino Verde trial in Nicaragua
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4295-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alvaro Cárcamo, Jorge Arosteguí, Josefina Coloma, Eva Harris, Robert J. Ledogar, Neil Andersson

Abstract

Studies in different countries have identified irregular water supply as a risk factor for dengue virus transmission. In 2013, Camino Verde, a cluster-randomised controlled trial in Managua, Nicaragua, and Mexico's Guerrero State, demonstrated impact of evidence-based community mobilisation on recent dengue infection and entomological indexes of infestation by Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. This secondary analysis of data from the trial impact survey asks: (1) what is the importance of regular water supply in neighbourhoods with and without the trial intervention and (2) can community interventions like Camino Verde reasonably exclude households with adequate water supply? Entomological data collected in the dry season of 2013 in intervention and control communities allow contrasts between households with regular and irregular water supplies. Indicators of entomological risk included the House Index and pupa positive household index. Generalised linear mixed models with cluster as a random effect compared households with and without regular water, and households in intervention and control communities. For the House Index, regular water supply was associated with a protection in both intervention households (OR 0.7, 95%CI 0.6-0.9) and control households (OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.5-0.8). For the pupa positive household index, we found a similar protection from regular water supply in intervention households (OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.4-0.8) and control households (OR 0.7, 95%CI 0.5-0.9). The Camino Verde intervention had a similar impact on House Index in households with regular water supply (OR 0.7, 95%CI 0.5-1.0) and irregular water supply (OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.4-0.8); for the pupa positive household index, the effect of the intervention was very similar in households with regular (OR0.5, 95%CI 0.3-0.8) and irregular (OR 0.5, 95%CI 0.3-0.9) water supply. While Aedes aegypti control efforts based on informed community mobilisation had a strong impact on households without a regular water supply, this intervention also impacted entomological indices in households with a regular water supply. These households should not be excluded from community mobilisation efforts to reduce the Aedes aegypti vector. ISRCTN27581154 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 5 7%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 26 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Environmental Science 5 7%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 29 40%
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 06 January 2018.
All research outputs
#17,925,346
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,555
of 14,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,141
of 316,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#233
of 262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,994 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 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 316,117 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.