| Literature DB >> 27369296 |
May O Lwin1, Santosh Vijaykumar, Vajira Sampath Rathnayake, Gentatsu Lim, Chitra Panchapakesan, Schubert Foo, Ruwan Wijayamuni, Prasad Wimalaratne, Owen Noel Newton Fernando.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sri Lanka has witnessed a series of dengue epidemics over the past five years, with the western province, home to the political capital of Colombo, bearing more than half of the dengue burden. Existing dengue monitoring prevention programs are exhausted as public health inspectors (PHIs) cope with increasing workloads and paper-based modes of surveillance and education, characterizing a reactive system unable to cope with the enormity of the problem. On the other hand, the unprecedented proliferation and affordability of mobile phones since 2009 and a supportive political climate have thus far remained unexploited for the use of mobile-based interventions for dengue management.Entities:
Keywords: dengue; mhealth; needs assessment; prevention and management; public health inspector; social media; surveillance
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27369296 PMCID: PMC4947191 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4657
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Demographic breakdown of the PHIs.
| Category | Frequency (N) | Percentage (%) | |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 29 | 100.0 | |
| Age | |||
| 21-30 | 16 | 55 | |
| 31-40 | 13 | 45 | |
| Ethnicity | |||
| Sinhalese | 28 | 96 | |
| Indian Tamil | 1 | 4 | |
| Highest educational level | |||
| Secondary and below | 3 | 10 | |
| Certificate or diploma | 25 | 86 | |
| University and above | 1 | 4 | |
| Duration of service | |||
| Less than 1 year | 13 | 45 | |
| 1-5 years | 6 | 21 | |
| More than 5 years | 10 | 35 | |
| History of digital technology use | |||
| Internet | 25 | 86 | |
| Simple mobile phones | 26 | 90 | |
| Smartphones | 18 | 62 | |
| Mobile apps | 10 | 35 | |
| Tablets | 8 | 28 | |
Technology-related attitudes.
| Constructs | M | SD | |
| Perceived ease of use | |||
| Internet | 4.28 | .88 | |
| Simple mobile phones | 4.77 | .62 | |
| Smartphones | 4.34 | .80 | |
| Mobile apps | 3.63 | 1.10 | |
| Tablets | 3.47 | 1.10 | |
| Perceived usefulness | |||
| Paper and pen | 3.41 | 1.46 | |
| Simple mobile phones | 2.79 | 1.43 | |
| Smartphones | 3.54 | 1.03 | |
| Mobile apps | 3.52 | 1.15 | |
| Tablets | 3.86 | 1.23 | |
| Perceived utility for dengue tasks | |||
| I can easily track new dengue cases in Colombo | 3.41 | 1.02 | |
| I can easily report new dengue cases in Colombo | 3.61 | 1.01 | |
| I can easily identify new mosquito breeding sites in Colombo | 3.24 | 1.02 | |
Figure 1Existing flow of dengue information in Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Distribution of topics.
| Topic | Percentage of PHIs who discussed a specific topic (%) | Percentage of reference in relation to overall references | Percentage of reference in relation to overall conversation size (%) |
| Barriers impeding PHI’s work | 100.0 | 13.6 | 16.7 |
| Epidemiology about dengue | 100.0 | 9.4 | 13.6 |
| Process of PHI’s work | 100.0 | 19.4 | 21.1 |
| Prevention of dengue | 96.4 | 5.4 | 8.9 |
| Knowledge about dengue (PHIs) | 92.9 | 5.1 | 7.0 |
| Education materials about dengue | 89.3 | 8.0 | 9.3 |
| Attitude of public towards PHIs | 86.0 | 6.4 | 6.0 |
| Equipment used for dengue tasks | 85.7 | 5.6 | 8.0 |
| Profile of PHI | 85.7 | 2.5 | 7.7 |
| Suggestion for mobile app | 85.7 | 6.3 | 7.6 |
| Responsibility of PHIs | 78.6 | 4.4 | 4.5 |
| Facilitators to PHI’s work | 71.4 | 2.6 | 3.8 |
| Client interaction with PHIs | 68.0 | 3.0 | 6.0 |
| Burden of dengue | 67.9 | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Knowledge about dengue (public) | 67.9 | 1.9 | 2.9 |
| Trust among clients on PHIs | 50.0 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| Story from PHI’s work life | 46.4 | 1.0 | 3.5 |
| Diseases related to mosquitoes | 39.3 | 0.9 | 2.8 |
| Technology use of PHIs | 25.0 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
| Demographic factors | 14.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Client satisfaction | 10.7 | 0.3 | 1.0 |
Figure 2Translation of research findings from needs assessment into mobile solutions.
Figure 3Screenshots from Mo-Buzz depicting the home screen (top left), mosquito reporting form (top right), potential breeding site submission form (bottom left), and health educational component (bottom right).