| Literature DB >> 29580642 |
Julie M Cleaton1, Ryan M Wallace2, Kelly Crowdis3, Andy Gibson4, Benjamin Monroe2, Fleurinord Ludder5, Melissa D Etheart6, Marco Antonio Natal Vigilato7, Alasdair King8.
Abstract
Haiti has historically vaccinated between 100,000 and 300,000 dogs annually against rabies, however national authorities have not been able to reach and maintain the 70% coverage required to eliminate the canine rabies virus variant. Haiti conducts massive dog vaccination campaigns on an annual basis and utilizes both central point and door-to-door methods. These methods require that dog owners are aware of the dates and locations of the campaign. To improve this awareness among dog owners, 600,000 text messages were sent to phones in two Haitian communes (Gonaives and Saint-Marc) to remind dog owners to attend the campaign. Text messages were delivered on the second day and at the mid-point of the campaign. A post-campaign household survey was conducted to assess dog owner's perception of the text messages and the impact on their participation in the vaccination campaign. Overall, 147 of 160 (91.9%) text-receiving dog owners indicated the text was helpful, and 162 of 187 (86.6%) responding dog owners said they would like to receive text reminders during future rabies vaccination campaigns. In areas hosting one-day central point campaigns, dog owners who received the text were 2.0 (95% CI 1.1, 3.6) times more likely to have participated in the campaign (73.1% attendance among those who received the text vs 36.4% among those who did not). In areas incorporating door-to-door vaccination over multiple days there was no significant difference in participation between dog owners who did and did not receive a text. Text message reminders were well-received and significantly improved campaign attendance, indicating that short message service (SMS) alerts may be a successful strategy in low resource areas with large free roaming dog populations.Entities:
Keywords: Rabies; SMS; Text message; Vaccination campaign; mHealth
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29580642 PMCID: PMC6066789 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.03.017
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vaccine ISSN: 0264-410X Impact factor: 3.641
Fig. 1Text message received by community member during Haiti’s mass dog rabies vaccination campaign, 2017. Translates to: “Attention! From May 21 to June 3, the Ministry of Agriculture will vaccinate all dogs in the city of Saint-Marc and Gonaives for free. Take your dogs to vaccinate at the nearest post, to protect yourself and the entire population.”
Frequency of all listed methods of vaccination campaign awareness and combinations thereof; Haiti 2017.
| Awareness method | Text message | Megaphone | Friend/neighbor | Radio | Healthcare worker | Television | Print media | Three awareness methods | Unaware | Total (n = 225) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Text message | 58 (25.8%) | 59 (26.2%) | 9 (4%) | 6 (2.7%) | 1 (0.4%) | 0 | 0 | 11 (4.9%) | – | 144 (64%) |
| Megaphone | – | 39 (17.3%) | 8 (3.6%) | 2 (0.9%) | 1 (0.4%) | 1 (0.4%) | 0 | 10 (4.4%) | – | 120 (53.3%) |
| Friend/neighbor | – | – | 10 (4.4%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 (3.1%) | – | 34 (15.1%) |
| Radio | – | – | – | 2 (0.9%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | 10 (4.4%) |
| Healthcare worker | – | – | – | – | 1 (0.4%) | 0 | 0 | 2 (0.9%) | – | 5 (2.2%) |
| Television | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | 0 | 2 (0.9%) | – | 3 (1.3%) |
| Print media | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | 1 (0.4%) | – | 1 (0.4%) |
| Three awareness methods | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 11 (4.9%) | – | 11 (4.9%) |
| Unaware | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 17 (7.6%) | 17 (7.6%) |
11 respondents were aware of the campaign through three methods. This column lists the number in each row with any two other awareness methods.
Campaign attendance by text receipt and location; Haiti 2017.
| Gonaives and Saint Marc | Northern Zones | Southern Zones | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| Received text | No text | No awareness | Received text | No text | No awareness | |
| Brought dog(s) to campaign | 49 | 8 | 0 | 59 | 32 | 2 |
| Did not bring dog(s) | 18 | 14 | 9 | 26 | 8 | 5 |
| % Brought to campaign | 73.1% | 36.4% | 0.0% | 69.4% | 80% | 28.6% |
| 95% Confidence interval | 61.4 – 82.4 | 19.6– 57.1 | 0 – 34.5 | 58.9 – 78.2 | 65.0 – 89.8 | 7.6 – 64.8 |
| P-value | 0.003 | <0.001 | 0.22 | 0.046 | ||
Text receipt was measured here as responding with anything other than “I did not get a text message” to the text helpfulness question and excluding those who answered they received it after the campaign in the awareness question. Lack of awareness was measured as those who did not receive a text or list any other awareness methods they had received before the campaign. Campaign attendance was measured as responding “yes” to “Did you or someone from your household bring your dogs to the vaccination campaign?”.
Mid-P exact, two-tailed, compared to “Received text” in both cases