Pérez Dennis, Van der Stuyft Patrick, Toledo María Eugenia, Ceballos Enrique, Fabré Francisco, Lefèvre Pierre
Department of Epidemiology, Institute of Tropical Medicine Pedro Kourí, Havana, Cuba.
Department of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 Jan 2;12(1):e0006115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006115. eCollection 2018 Jan.
Within the context of a field trial conducted by the Cuban vector control program (AaCP), we assessed acceptability of insecticide-treated curtains (ITCs) and residual insecticide treatment (RIT) with deltamethrin by the community. We also assessed the potential influence of interviewees' risk perceptions for getting dengue and disease severity.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We embedded a qualitative study using in-depth interviews in a cluster randomized trial (CRT) testing the effectiveness of ITCs and RIT in Santiago de Cuba. In-depth interviews (N = 38) were conducted four and twelve months after deployment of the tools with people who accepted the tools, who stopped using them and who did not accept the tools. Data analysis was deductive. Main reasons for accepting ITCs at the start of the trial were perceived efficacy and not being harmful to health. Constraints linked to manufacturer instructions were the main reason for not using ITCs. People stopped using the ITCs due to perceived allergy, toxicity and low efficacy. Few heads of households refused RIT despite the noting reasons for rejection, such as allergy, health hazard and toxicity. Positive opinions of the vector control program influenced acceptability of both tools. However, frequent insecticide fogging as part of routine AaCP vector control actions diminished perceived efficacy of both tools and, therefore, acceptability. Fifty percent of interviewees did feel at risk for getting dengue and considered dengue a severe disease. However, this did not appear to influence acceptability of ITCs or RIT.
CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Acceptability of ITCs and RIT was linked to acceptability of AaCP routine vector control activities. However, uptake and use were not always an indication of acceptability. Factors leading to acceptability may be best identified using qualitative methods, but more research is needed on the concept of acceptability and its measurement.
在古巴病媒控制项目(AaCP)开展的一项现场试验背景下,我们评估了社区对经杀虫剂处理的蚊帐(ITC)和使用溴氰菊酯进行残留杀虫剂处理(RIT)的接受程度。我们还评估了受访者对感染登革热风险的认知以及疾病严重程度的潜在影响。
方法/主要发现:我们在一项群组随机试验(CRT)中嵌入了一项定性研究,该试验在古巴圣地亚哥测试ITC和RIT的有效性,采用深度访谈的方式。在工具部署后的四个月和十二个月,对接受工具、停止使用工具和未接受工具的人员进行了深度访谈(N = 38)。数据分析采用演绎法。试验开始时接受ITC的主要原因是认为其有效且对健康无害。与制造商说明相关的限制是不使用ITC的主要原因。人们因感觉过敏、有毒性和效果不佳而停止使用ITC。尽管有拒绝的理由,如过敏、健康危害和毒性,但很少有户主拒绝RIT。对病媒控制项目的积极看法影响了这两种工具的可接受性。然而,作为AaCP常规病媒控制行动一部分的频繁杀虫剂喷雾降低了人们对这两种工具有效性的认知,进而降低了可接受性。50%的受访者确实感觉有感染登革热的风险,并认为登革热是一种严重疾病。然而,这似乎并未影响ITC或RIT的可接受性。
结论/意义:ITC和RIT的可接受性与AaCP常规病媒控制活动的可接受性相关。然而,采用和使用情况并不总是可接受性的指标。使用定性方法可能最有助于确定导致可接受性的因素,但需要对可接受性的概念及其衡量进行更多研究。