van Eijk Anna Maria, Ramanathapuram Lalitha, Sutton Patrick L, Peddy Nandini, Choubey Sandhya, Mohanty Stuti, Asokan Aswin, Ravishankaran Sangamithra, Priya G Sri Lakshmi, Johnson Justin Amala, Velayutham Sangeetha, Kanagaraj Deena, Patel Ankita, Desai Nisha, Tandel Nikunj, Sullivan Steven A, Wassmer Samuel C, Singh Ranveer, Pradhan K, Carlton Jane M, Srivasatava H C, Eapen Alex, Sharma S K
Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, Department of Biology, New York University, New York, NY, 10003, USA.
Acsel Health, 500 5th Ave, Suite 2760, New York, NY, 10110, USA.
Parasit Vectors. 2016 Jul 27;9(1):418. doi: 10.1186/s13071-016-1709-9.
Repellents such as coils, vaporizers, mats and creams can be used to reduce the risk of malaria and other infectious diseases. Although evidence for their effectiveness is limited, they are advertised as providing an additional approach to mosquito control in combination with other strategies, e.g. insecticide-treated nets. We examined the use of repellents in India in an urban setting in Chennai (mainly Plasmodium vivax malaria), a peri-urban setting in Nadiad (both P. vivax and P. falciparum malaria), and a more rural setting in Raurkela (mainly P. falciparum malaria).
The use of repellents was examined at the household level during a census, and at the individual level in cross-sectional surveys and among patients visiting a clinic with fever or other symptoms. Factors associated with their use were examined in a multivariate analysis, and the association between malaria and the use of repellents was assessed among survey- and clinic participants.
Characteristics of participants differed by region, with more people of higher education present in Chennai. Use of repellents varied between 56-77 % at the household level and between 32-78 % at the individual level. Vaporizers were the main repellents used in Chennai, whereas coils were more common in Nadiad and Raurkela. In Chennai and Nadiad, vaporizers were more likely to be used in households with young male children. Vaporizer use was associated with higher socio-economic status (SES) in households in Chennai and Nadiad, whereas use of coils was greater in the lower SES strata. In Raurkela, there was a higher use of coils among the higher SES strata. Education was associated with the use of a repellent among survey participants in Chennai and clinic study participants in Chennai and Nadiad. Repellent use was associated with less malaria in the clinic study in Chennai and Raurkela, but not in the surveys, with the exception of the use of coils in Nadiad.
Repellents are widely used in India. Their use is influenced by the level of education and SES. Information on effectiveness and guidance on choices may improve rational use.
蚊香、蒸发器、电热片蚊香和驱蚊乳膏等驱虫剂可用于降低疟疾和其他传染病的风险。尽管其有效性的证据有限,但它们被宣传为与其他策略(如经杀虫剂处理的蚊帐)相结合提供了一种额外的蚊虫控制方法。我们在印度金奈的城市环境(主要是间日疟原虫疟疾)、纳迪亚德的城郊环境(间日疟原虫和恶性疟原虫疟疾)以及劳尔克拉的更农村环境(主要是恶性疟原虫疟疾)中研究了驱虫剂的使用情况。
在人口普查期间在家庭层面研究驱虫剂的使用情况,并在横断面调查以及在因发烧或其他症状前往诊所就诊的患者中在个体层面进行研究。在多变量分析中研究与驱虫剂使用相关的因素,并在调查参与者和诊所参与者中评估疟疾与驱虫剂使用之间的关联。
参与者的特征因地区而异,金奈有更多受过高等教育的人。驱虫剂的家庭层面使用率在56%至77%之间,个体层面使用率在32%至78%之间。蒸发器是金奈使用的主要驱虫剂,而蚊香在纳迪亚德和劳尔克拉更常见。在金奈和纳迪亚德,蒸发器更有可能在有年幼男童的家庭中使用。在金奈和纳迪亚德的家庭中,蒸发器的使用与较高的社会经济地位(SES)相关,而蚊香在较低SES阶层中的使用更为普遍。在劳尔克拉,较高SES阶层中蚊香的使用率更高。在金奈的调查参与者以及金奈和纳迪亚德的诊所研究参与者中,教育与驱虫剂的使用相关。在金奈和劳尔克拉的诊所研究中,驱虫剂的使用与较少的疟疾相关,但在调查中并非如此,纳迪亚德使用蚊香的情况除外。
驱虫剂在印度广泛使用。其使用受到教育水平和社会经济地位的影响。关于有效性的信息和选择指导可能会改善合理使用。