| Literature DB >> 34199508 |
Md Siddikur Rahman1,2, Tipaya Ekalaksananan1,3, Sumaira Zafar4, Petchaboon Poolphol5, Oleg Shipin4, Ubydul Haque6, Richard Paul7, Joacim Rocklöv8, Chamsai Pientong1,3, Hans J Overgaard1,9.
Abstract
Aedes aegypti is the main vector of dengue globally. The variables that influence the abundance of dengue vectors are numerous and complex. This has generated a need to focus on areas at risk of disease transmission, the spatial-temporal distribution of vectors, and the factors that modulate vector abundance. To help guide and improve vector-control efforts, this study identified the ecological, social, and other environmental risk factors that affect the abundance of adult female and immature Ae. aegypti in households in urban and rural areas of northeastern Thailand. A one-year entomological study was conducted in four villages of northeastern Thailand between January and December 2019. Socio-demographic; self-reported prior dengue infections; housing conditions; durable asset ownership; water management; characteristics of water containers; knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding climate change and dengue; and climate data were collected. Household crowding index (HCI), premise condition index (PCI), socio-economic status (SES), and entomological indices (HI, CI, BI, and PI) were calculated. Negative binomial generalized linear models (GLMs) were fitted to identify the risk factors associated with the abundance of adult females and immature Ae. aegypti. Urban sites had higher entomological indices and numbers of adult Ae. aegypti mosquitoes than rural sites. Overall, participants' KAP about climate change and dengue were low in both settings. The fitted GLM showed that a higher abundance of adult female Ae. aegypti was significantly (p < 0.05) associated with many factors, such as a low education level of household respondents, crowded households, poor premise conditions, surrounding house density, bathrooms located indoors, unscreened windows, high numbers of wet containers, a lack of adult control, prior dengue infections, poor climate change adaptation, dengue, and vector-related practices. Many of the above were also significantly associated with a high abundance of immature mosquito stages. The GLM model also showed that maximum and mean temperature with four-and one-to-two weeks of lag were significant predictors (p < 0.05) of the abundance of adult and immature mosquitoes, respectively, in northeastern Thailand. The low KAP regarding climate change and dengue highlights the engagement needs for vector-borne disease prevention in this region. The identified risk factors are important for the critical first step toward developing routine Aedes surveillance and reliable early warning systems for effective dengue and other mosquito-borne disease prevention and control strategies at the household and community levels in this region and similar settings elsewhere.Entities:
Keywords: Aedes aegypti; climate change; dengue; entomological indices; knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP); vector control
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34199508 PMCID: PMC8199701 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18115971
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Locations of the four data collection sites in northeastern Thailand. Data were collected from 128 households (32 households per site) in two urban and two rural study sites.
Variables used in the premise condition index (PCI), household crowding index (HCI,) and socio-economic status (SES).
| Index | Variables | Description | Classification Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premise condition index (PCI) | House condition | Good (well-maintained, e.g., newly painted or new house) | 1 |
| Intermediate (moderately well-maintained house) | 2 | ||
| Bad (not well-maintained house, e.g., paint peeling, broken items visible, and dilapidated old house) | 3 | ||
| Yard condition | Good (tidy yard) | 1 | |
| Intermediate (moderately tidy yard) | 2 | ||
| Bad (untidy yard) | 3 | ||
| Shade condition | Not shaded (very little or no shade) | 1 | |
| Intermediate (some shade: >25% but <50%) | 2 | ||
| Shady (plenty of shade: >50%) | 3 | ||
| Water supply and | Piped water | 1 | |
| Ground water/well water supply | 2 | ||
| Rainwater and/or open water source: river/stream/lake/mountain water/river water | 3 | ||
| Household crowding index (HCI) | Co-residents | Monthly number of co-residents per household | - |
| Number of rooms | Number of rooms per household | - | |
| Socio-economic status (SES) | House roof material | Ceramic/Wood/Metal | - |
| House walls material | Plastered/cement/bricks/wood | - | |
| Ownership of durable | television/VCD/refrigerator/washing machine/mobile/smartphone/computer/oven/microwave/airconditioner/car/pickup/motorcycle | - | |
| Ownership of toilet facility | Yes/no | - | |
| Toilet/bathroom floor | Tiles/cement/earth | - | |
| Ownership of flush | Yes/no | - |
Number of mosquitoes caught in 128 households in two urban and two rural study sites during monthly collections in northeastern Thailand during January–December 2019.
| Species/Stage | Total Number (%) | Monthly Range, n | Monthly Mean ± SD | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urban | Rural | Urban | Rural | Urban | Rural | |
| Adult | ||||||
| Female | 551 (18.8) | 515 (21.8) | 6–110 | 23–81 | 45.9 ± 28.2 | 42.9 ± 19.5 |
| Male | 823 (28.2) | 769 (32.7) | 11–166 | 34–153 | 64.0 ± 47.3 | 68.5 ± 36.4 |
| Adult | ||||||
| Female | 36 (1.3) | 11 (0.4) | 0–17 | 0–3 | 3.0 ± 4.6 | 0.9 ± 0.9 |
| Male | 16 (0.6) | 12 (0.5) | 0–5 | 0–4 | 1.3 ± 1.6 | 1.0 ± 1.1 |
| 1302 (44.6) | 677 (28.8) | 63–149 | 40–83 | 108.5 ± 26.5 | 56.4 ± 13.6 | |
| Other species | 191 (6.5) | 370 (15.8) | 6–27 | 6–54 | 15.9 ± 5.9 | 30.8 ± 19 |
| Total adult mosquitoes | 2919 (100) | 2354 (100) | 0–166 | 0–153 | 39.8 ± 45.8 | 31.6 ± 27.9 |
| Immature | ||||||
| Larvae | 647 (42.7) | 525 (48.8) | 33–75 | 23–65 | 53.9 ± 14.4 | 43.7 ± 11.3 |
| Pupae | 543 (35.8) | 495 (46.0) | 16–112 | 10–148 | 16.4 ± 17.1 | 3.0 ± 3.8 |
| Immature | ||||||
| Larvae | 197 (12.9) | 37 (3.4) | 0–50 | 0–14 | 45.2 ± 31.7 | 41.2 ± 39.3 |
| Pupae | 131 (8.6) | 19 (1.8) | 0–57 | 0–10 | 10.9 ± 16.3 | 1.5 ± 2.7 |
| Total immature | 1518 (100) | 1076 (100) | 0–112 | 0–148 | 33.4 ± 32.2 | 22.4 ± 28.8 |
SD: standard deviation.
Figure 2Monthly distribution of mosquitoes caught in a total of 128 households in two urban and two rural study sites in northeastern Thailand during January–December 2019.
Figure 3Household distribution of Aedes mosquitoes caught in 128 households in two urban and two rural study sites in northeastern Thailand during January–December 2019. The green box represents the inset map of study sites: (A) adult mosquitoes; (B) immature mosquitoes.
Figure 4Entomological indices (HI, CI, BI, and PI) in urban and rural study sites in northeastern Thailand during January–December 2019.
Number of immature Aedes mosquitoes (%) collected in containers in 128 households in two urban and two rural study sites in northeastern Thailand during January–December 2019.
| Larvae | Pupae | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Container Characteristics | Description | Urban | Rural | Urban | Rural | |
| Shape of container | Square (Cemented tank, flower vase/pots) | 27 (7) | 66 (24) | 7 (6) | 21 (26) | 121 (14) |
| Round (jar, bucket, etc.) | 292 (79) | 198 (71) | 99 (79) | 54 (66) | 643 (75) | |
| Other (tree holes, bamboo, ant traps, solid waste, etc.) | 51 (14) | 15 (5) | 19 (15) | 7 (8) | 92 (11) | |
| Size of container | Small (<50 cm) | 161 (44) | 97 (35) | 56 (45) | 31 (38) | 345 (40) |
| Medium (50–100 cm) | 200 (54) | 172 (61) | 66 (53) | 46 (56) | 484 (57) | |
| Large (>150 cm) | 9 (2) | 10 (4) | 3 (2) | 5 (6) | 27 (3) | |
| Container Cover | Good | 12 (3) | 3 (1) | 2 (2) | 2 (2) | 19 (2) |
| Poorly fitted | 34 (9) | 15 (5) | 14 (11) | 7 (9) | 70 (8) | |
| None | 324 (88) | 261 (94) | 109 (87) | 73 (89) | 767 (90) | |
| Location | Indoor | 120 (32) | 129 (46) | 37 (30) | 42 (51) | 328 (38) |
| Outdoor | 250 (68) | 150 (54) | 88 (70) | 40 (49) | 528 (62) | |
| In toilet or not | In toilet | 108 (29) | 165 (59) | 35 (28) | 42 (51) | 350 (41) |
| Not in toilet | 262 (71) | 114 (41) | 90 (72) | 40 (49) | 506 (59) | |
| Larval control types | Abate | 20 (5) | 12 (4) | 5 (4) | 4 (5) | 41 (5) |
| Larval control washed in last week | 28 (8) | 42 (15) | 8 (6) | 7 (9) | 85 (10) | |
| No larvae control | 322 (87) | 225 (81) | 112 (90) | 71 (86) | 730 (85) | |
Figure 5Boxplots showing the percentage and mean scores of knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) in a total of 128 households in urban and rural study sites in northeastern Thailand during February–April 2019. Maximum scores are 100 for each KAP component.
Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for the abundance of Ae. aegypti per household in relation to socio-demographic and household risk factors using negative binomial generalized linear models. Data were collected from 128 households in northeastern Thailand during January–December 2019.
| Female Adults | Immatures | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | IRR (95% CI) | IRR (95% CI) | |||
| Sites types | |||||
| Urban | 64 (50) | 1.55 (1.21–1.98) | 0.000 | 1.47 (1.01–2.17) | 0.042 |
| Rural | 64 (50) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Education level | |||||
| <=Primary | 89 (69.5) | 1.39 (1.07–1.79) | 0.011 | 1.49 (1.02–2.18) | 0.032 |
| >Primary | 39 (30.5) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Socio-economic status | |||||
| Poor | 36 (28.1) | 0.94 (0.72–1.23) | 0.693 | 2.15 (1.39–3.32) | 0.001 |
| Intermediate | 52 (40.6) | 1.03 (0.81–1.3) | 0.801 | 1.63 (1.1–2.43) | 0.015 |
| Wealthy | 40 (31.3) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Household crowding index (HCI) | |||||
| 3 (Crowded) | 31 (24.2) | 1.76 (1.27–2.43) | 0.001 | 0.75 (0.46–1.23) | 0.263 |
| 2 (Medium crowded) | 65 (50.8) | 1.58 (1.22–2.05) | 0.000 | 0.50 (0.34–0.74) | 0.001 |
| 1 (Not crowded) | 32 (25.0) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Premise condition index (PCI) | |||||
| 9–10 (High) | 41 (32.0) | 1.97 (1.49–2.61) | 0.000 | 1.54 (1–2.37) | 0.043 |
| 7–8 (Medium) | 46 (36.0) | 1.20 (0.91–1.59) | 0.179 | 1.07 (0.72–1.59) | 0.730 |
| 5–6 (Low) | 41 (32.0) | 1 | 1 | ||
| House density | |||||
| 100–200 | 8 (6.3) | 1.29 (0.83–1.99) | 0.246 | 0.67 (0.34–1.34) | 0.267 |
| 201–500 | 38 (29.7) | 1.37 (1.05–1.8) | 0.021 | 0.84 (0.55–1.29) | 0.433 |
| 501–1000 | 47 (36.7) | 1.19 (0.92–1.55) | 0.167 | 1.49 (1.02–2.18) | 0.038 |
| >1000 | 35 (27.3) | 1 | 1 | ||
| House type | |||||
| Single house, one | 64 (50) | 1.009 (0.82–1.22) | 0.931 | 1.27 (0.91–1.77) | 0.146 |
| Single house, | 64 (50) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Roof materials type | |||||
| Metal | 97 (75.8) | 1.14 (0.83–1.58) | 0.400 | 0.89 (0.54–1.46) | 0.659 |
| Wood | 17 (13.3) | 1.03 (0.65–1.61) | 0.889 | 0.57 (0.28–1.16) | 0.125 |
| Ceramic | 14 (10.9) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Wall type | |||||
| Wood | 12 (9.4) | 1.11 (0.79–1.57) | 0.530 | 1.68 (1.01–2.81) | 0.045 |
| Cement/bricks | 33 (25.8) | 0.95 (0.76–1.18) | 0.652 | 1.48 (1.05–2.09) | 0.022 |
| Plastered | 83 (64.8) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Location of bathroom/toilet | |||||
| Indoors | 91 (71.1) | 1.46 (1.14–1.89) | 0.003 | 1.01 (0.68–1.5) | 0.925 |
| Outdoors | 37 (28.9) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Bathroom floor type | |||||
| Cement | 54 (42.2) | 1.15 (0.91–1.47) | 0.221 | 0.73 (0.5–1.07) | 0.109 |
| Tiles | 74 (57.8) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Eaves status | |||||
| Closed | 79 (61.7) | 1.14 (0.92–1.42) | 0.201 | 0.94 (0.67–1.3) | 0.715 |
| Opened | 49 (38.3) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Windows | |||||
| Unscreened | 107 (83.6) | 1.41 (1.04–1.92) | 0.025 | 1.65 (1.05–2.6) | 0.029 |
| Screened | 21 (16.4) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Number of | |||||
| >50 | 109 (85.2) | 1.33 (1.01–1.75) | 0.037 | 1.41 (0.92–2.16) | 0.112 |
| <50 | 19 (14.8) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Use any kind of larvae control | |||||
| No | 93 (72.7) | 0.93 (0.75–1.14) | 0.503 | 1.20 (0.84–1.7) | 0.300 |
| Yes | 35 (27.3) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Use any kind of adult control | |||||
| No | 72 (56.2) | 1.24 (1.01–1.55) | 0.045 | 1.13 (0.79–1.61) | 0.496 |
| Yes | 56 (43.8) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Self-reported dengue infections | |||||
| Yes | 12 (9.4) | 1.68 (1.22–2.32) | 0.001 | 0.79 (0.46–1.35) | 0.398 |
| No | 116 (90.6) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Climate change knowledge | |||||
| Poor | 97 (75.8) | 0.87 (0.61–1.24) | 0.451 | 1.97 (1.19–3.25) | 0.008 |
| Good | 31 (24.2) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Climate change attitude | |||||
| Poor | 49 (38.3) | 0.97 (0.79–1.19) | 0.801 | 0.71 (0.52–0.99) | 0.043 |
| Good | 79 (61.7) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Climate change practice | |||||
| Poor | 105 (82.0) | 1.52 (1.07–2.16) | 0.017 | 1.84 (1.13–2.99) | 0.014 |
| Good | 23 (18.0) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Dengue knowledge | |||||
| Poor | 73 (57.0) | 0.91 (0.7–1.17) | 0.491 | 1.18 (0.8–1.75) | 0.391 |
| Good | 55 (43.0) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Dengue attitude | |||||
| Poor | 40 (31.3) | 1.24 (1.01–1.53) | 0.035 | 0.75 (0.54–1.04) | 0.092 |
| Good | 88 (68.8) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Dengue practice | |||||
| Poor | 94 (73.4) | 1.43 (1.03–1.99) | 0.029 | 1.93 (1.17–3.18) | 0.009 |
| Good | 34 (26.6) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Model fit | |||||
| Omnibus test | 131.2 | 0.000 | 957.2 | 0.000 | |
| AIC | 719.2 | 935.3 | |||
| BIC | 810.5 | 1026.6 |
CI: confidence interval; SD: standard deviation; AIC: Akaike′s information criterion; BIC: Bayesian information criterion.
Monthly climate variables in urban and rural sites in northeastern Thailand during January–December 2019.
| Meteorological Variables | Range (n) | Mean ± SD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urban | Rural | Urban | Rural | |
| Mean temperature (°C) | 23.2–32.6 | 22.7–31.0 | 28.0 ± 2.3 | 27.2 ± 2.2 |
| Minimum temperature (°C) | 13.2–26.7 | 9.6–23.7 | 21.6 ± 3.7 | 19.1 ± 3.9 |
| Maximum temperature (°C) | 31.0–41.8 | 33.0–41.8 | 35.5 ± 3.0 | 37.0 ± 2.6 |
| Relative humidity (%) | 58.0–88.1 | 60.0–88.7 | 73.5 ± 8.1 | 76.3 ± 8.2 |
| Total rainfall (mm) | 0–803.3 | 0–1229.4 | 102.9 ± 173.3 | 166.5 ± 254.7 |
SD: standard deviation.
Figure 6Effect of climate variables on the abundance of adult female Ae. aegypti mosquitoes in northeastern Thailand during January–December 2019. Incidence risk ratios were computed by negative binomial generalized linear models. Each panel shows the lag effects (0–4 weeks) of maximum, minimum, and mean temperature (°C); total rainfall (mm); and relative humidity (%). * p-value ≤ 0.05, ** p-value ≤ 0.01. Each panel (A–D) represents selected urban and rural study sites.
Figure 7Effect of climate variables on the abundance of immature Ae. aegypti mosquitoes in northeastern Thailand during January–December 2019. Incidence risk ratios were computed by negative binomial generalized linear models. Each panel shows the lag effects (0–4 weeks) of maximum, minimum, and mean temperature (°C); total rainfall (mm); and relative humidity (%). * p-value ≤ 0.05, ** p-value ≤ 0.01. Each panel (A–D) represents selected urban and rural study sites.