| Literature DB >> 23318241 |
Natarajan Arunachalam1, Brij Kishore Tyagi, Miriam Samuel, R Krishnamoorthi, R Manavalan, Satish Chandra Tewari, V Ashokkumar, Axel Kroeger, Johannes Sommerfeld, Max Petzold.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dengue is highly endemic in Chennai city, South India, in spite of continuous vector control efforts. This intervention study was aimed at establishing the efficacy as well as the favouring and limiting factors relating to a community-based environmental intervention package to control the dengue vector Aedes aegypti.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23318241 PMCID: PMC3541894 DOI: 10.1179/2047773212Y.0000000056
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pathog Glob Health ISSN: 2047-7724 Impact factor: 2.894
Figure 1Map of India with study site indicated.
Figure 2Wooden cover to prevent Aedes breeding in cement tanks.
Knowledge about dengue and dengue prevention in the study population before and after the intervention, Chennai
| Per cent of cluster dwellers who: | Baseline ( | Intervention areas ( | Control areas ( | Intervention versus control ( |
| had heard about dengue | 94.0 | 98.2 | 90.1 | |
| considered dengue serious | 63.0 | 90.6 | 46.1 | |
| knew that mosquitoes transmit dengue | 55.0 | 90.7 | 57.4 | |
| knew that dengue is preventable | 55.0 | 87.4 | 43.7 | |
| knew about mosquito life cycle | 29.5 | 89 | 29.2 | |
| knew about vector breeding in clean water | 26.1 | 87.5 | 28.4 |
Note: *Significant.
Major container types and numbers with pupae found during the wet season base line survey (November–December 2009) in Chennai
| Intervention | Control | |||||||||||
| Type of container | Total number of container | Proportion to total containers | Container positive | Proportion to container+ve to total | No. of pupae in positive container | % of all pupae | Total number of containers | Proportion to total containers | Container positive | Proportion of container+ve to total | No. of pupae in positive container | % of all pupae |
| Cement tank* | 73 | 0.021 | 19 | 0.062 | 366 | 7.34 | 58 | 0.019 | 22 | 0.099 | 431 | 13.14 |
| Coconut shells | 14 | 0.004 | 5 | 0.016 | 89 | 1.79 | 6 | 0.002 | 5 | 0.023 | 52 | 1.58 |
| Disused container | 156 | 0.045 | 87 | 0.282 | 1342 | 26.92 | 58 | 0.020 | 41 | 0.185 | 691 | 21.06 |
| Flower vases | 25 | 0.007 | 16 | 0.052 | 329 | 6.59 | 16 | 0.005 | 7 | 0.031 | 130 | 3.96 |
| Grinding stone | 55 | 0.016 | 31 | 0.101 | 514 | 10.31 | 41 | 0.014 | 32 | 0.144 | 692 | 21.09 |
| Plastic/metal drum | 260 | 0.076 | 63 | 0.205 | 1222 | 24.51 | 193 | 0.066 | 36 | 0.162 | 558 | 17.00 |
| Plastic pot | 1434 | 0.417 | 17 | 0.055 | 205 | 4.11 | 1168 | 0.397 | 13 | 0.595 | 53 | 1.62 |
| Tyres | 24 | 0.007 | 21 | 0.068 | 279 | 5.60 | 14 | 0.005 | 13 | 0.595 | 166 | 5.06 |
| Miscellaneous† | 1396 | 0.406 | 49 | 0.159 | 639 | 12.82 | 1387 | 0.472 | 53 | 0.239 | 508 | 15.48 |
| Total (including all containers | 3437 | 308 | 4985 | 2941 | 222 | 3281 |
Notes: *Cement tanks, which were the predominant producers of Aedes pupae, had lost their relative importance after the Corporation (public sector) had treated them with temephos, just before our survey in the wet season.
†Miscellaneous containers recorded were ceramic jar, bowl, bucket, metal containers, mud pot, refrigerator trays, and tree holes.
Figure 3Pupae per person index (95% confidence interval) in intervention and check clusters (August 2009 to November 2010) Chennai, India.
Summary of entomological indices in the wet season
| Indicators | Intervention (1000 houses) | Control (1000 houses) | Difference between arms (intervention and control) wet season | Difference in reduction, baseline to post-intervention, between two arms ( | ||
| Baseline (November–December 2009) | Evaluation (October–November 2010) | Baseline (November–December 2009) | Evaluation (October–November 2010) | |||
| House index (%) | 19.6 | 4.2 | 17.2 | 16.5 | −14.7 | |
| Change from baseline | 15.4 | 0.7 | ||||
| % reduction from baseline | 78.6% | 4.1% | ||||
| Container index (%) | 8.91 | 1.05 | 7.51 | 5.72 | −6.06 | |
| Change from baseline | 7.86 | 1.79 | ||||
| % reduction from baseline | 88.2% | 23.8% | ||||
| Breteau index | 30.8 | 4.3 | 22.2 | 21.4 | −25.7 | |
| Change from baseline | 26.5 | 0.8 | ||||
| % reduction from baseline | 86.0% | 3.6 | ||||
| Pupae per person index | 1.075 | 0.004 | 0.729 | 0.355 | −0.35 | |
| Change from baseline | 1.071 | 0.374 | ||||
| % reduction from baseline | 99.6 | 99.6 | 51.3 | |||
Note: *Significant.