London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, United Kingdom.
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010 Nov;83(5):965-72. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2010.10-0311.
The social acceptability and durability of two house screening interventions were addressed using focus group discussions, questionnaires, indoor climate measurements, and durability surveys. Participants recognized that screening stopped mosquitoes (79-96%) and other insects (86-98%) entering their houses. These and other benefits were appreciated by significantly more recipients of full screening than users of screened ceilings. Full screened houses were 0.26°C hotter at night (P = 0.05) than houses with screened ceilings and 0.51°C (P < 0.001) hotter than houses with no screening (28.43°C), though only 9% of full screened house users and 17% of screened ceiling users complained about the heat. Although 71% of screened doors and 85% of ceilings had suffered some damage after 12 months, the average number of holes of any size was < 5 for doors and < 7 for ceilings. In conclusion, house screening is a well-appreciated and durable vector control tool.
采用焦点小组讨论、问卷调查、室内气候测量和耐久性调查的方法，评估了两种房屋筛选干预措施的社会可接受性和耐久性。参与者认识到筛选可以阻止蚊子（79-96%）和其他昆虫（86-98%）进入他们的房屋。与使用 screened ceilings 的人相比，完全屏蔽的房屋的这些和其他好处更受接受者的赞赏。完全屏蔽的房屋在夜间比有 screened ceilings 的房屋热 0.26°C（P=0.05），比没有屏蔽的房屋热 0.51°C（P<0.001）（28.43°C），尽管只有 9%的完全屏蔽房屋使用者和 17%的 screened ceiling 使用者抱怨过热。尽管 12 个月后，71%的 screened doors 和 85%的 ceilings 遭受了一些损坏，但门的任何大小的孔的平均数量<5 个，天花板的孔<7 个。总之，房屋筛选是一种广受好评且耐用的病媒控制工具。
