• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

2020年柬埔寨疟疾指标调查:对疟疾消除的启示

Cambodia malaria indicator survey 2020: Implications for malaria elimination.

作者信息

Kheang Soy T, Por Ir, Sovannaroth Siv, Dysoley Lek, Chea Huch, Po Ly, AlMossawi Hala J, Imran Abu Al, Kak Neeraj

机构信息

Health and Social Development (HSD), Cambodia.

National Institute of Public Health (NIPH), Cambodia.

出版信息

Malariaworld J. 2021 Jul 1;12:5. eCollection 2021.

PMID:34532228
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8415051/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cambodia has made significant progress in controlling malaria in the past decade. It now aims to eliminate malaria from the country by 2025. It launched the Malaria Elimination Action Framework (MEAF 2016-2020) in 2015 with strong political commitment targeting appropriate interventions on high-risk populations, particularly mobile and migrant groups.

METHODS

In 2020, the household-level Cambodia Malaria Survey 2020 (CMS 2020) was conducted with the objective to assess the performance of malaria control activities using the indicators outlined in MEAF 2016-2020. The survey used a cross-sectional probability proportional to size approach drawing 4,000 households from 100 villages across the malaria-endemic districts of the country.

RESULTS

A total of 3,996 households with 17,415 inhabitants were interviewed. Of the surveyed households, 98.4% owned a long-lasting insecticide-treated bednet or hammock (LLIN/LLIHN). However, only 79.5% of these reported sleeping under a net the previous night, with only 45.7% sleeping under an insecticide treated net (ITN). Given that forest visitors are at the highest risk of getting malaria, the survey also targeted this group. Of the forest visitor respondents, 89.3% brought an ITN along and 88.9% reported to have used a net during their forest stay. About 10.8% of forest goers had received a forest kit for malaria prevention from mobile malaria workers the last time they went to the forest. Knowledge about mosquito repellents was high among forest goers (62.5%) but the actual use thereof during the last visit to the forest was low (22%). While awareness about malaria prevention with LLINs remained high among most respondents, knowledge about malaria diagnosis and treatment was not universal. Source of malaria knowledge and its treatment was usually from a household member, followed by a village malaria worker or a primary health care center staff. Of those who had fever during the previous two weeks, 93.6% sought advice or treatment outside the home, and the most commonly reported source for advice or treatment was private providers (39.4%) followed by health center/district hospital (31.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

ITN distribution and other malaria prevention interventions have largely benefited the high-risk groups including the forest visitors. Comparing the CMS 2020 results with the 2017 CMS results, it is clear that forest visitors' use of LLIN/LLIHN has improved considerably. However, more needs to be done to ensure forest visitors be protected either through using LLINs or repellents while working and staying in the forest areas. Also, given that sleeping under LLINs has decreased over the past several years among the at-risk populations, the programme will have to develop strategies to ensure that the communities do not lower their guard against malaria as cases further dwindle in malaria prone areas. Heightened awareness amongst the general population will be critical for eliminating malaria in Cambodia without any possibility of malaria re-emergence or re-establishment.

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a7b1/8415051/0be49540ae5b/MWJ-12-05-f3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a7b1/8415051/8ba3cc41ac62/MWJ-12-05-f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a7b1/8415051/b7e920229c00/MWJ-12-05-f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a7b1/8415051/0be49540ae5b/MWJ-12-05-f3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a7b1/8415051/8ba3cc41ac62/MWJ-12-05-f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a7b1/8415051/b7e920229c00/MWJ-12-05-f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a7b1/8415051/0be49540ae5b/MWJ-12-05-f3.jpg
摘要

背景

柬埔寨在过去十年中在控制疟疾方面取得了重大进展。该国目前的目标是到2025年消除疟疾。2015年,柬埔寨发起了《疟疾消除行动框架(2016 - 2020年)》,在强有力的政治承诺下,针对高风险人群,特别是流动和移民群体采取适当干预措施。

方法

2020年,开展了家庭层面的《2020年柬埔寨疟疾调查》(CMS 2020),目的是使用《2016 - 2020年疟疾消除行动框架》中概述的指标评估疟疾控制活动的成效。该调查采用了与规模成比例的横断面抽样方法,从该国疟疾流行区的100个村庄中抽取了4000户家庭。

结果

共采访了3996户家庭,涉及17415名居民。在接受调查的家庭中,98.4%拥有长效驱虫蚊帐或吊床(LLIN/LLIHN)。然而,这些家庭中只有79.5%报告前一晚睡在蚊帐下,其中只有45.7%睡在经杀虫剂处理的蚊帐(ITN)下。鉴于森林访客感染疟疾的风险最高,该调查也针对这一群体。在森林访客受访者中,89.3%携带了ITN,88.9%报告在森林停留期间使用了蚊帐。约10.8%的森林访客上次去森林时从流动疟疾防治人员那里获得了疟疾预防森林套装。森林访客对驱蚊剂的知晓率较高(62.5%),但上次去森林时实际使用率较低(22%)。虽然大多数受访者对使用LLIN预防疟疾的意识仍然很高,但对疟疾诊断和治疗的知识并不普及。疟疾知识及其治疗的来源通常是家庭成员,其次是村庄疟疾防治人员或初级卫生保健中心工作人员。在前两周发烧的人中,93.6%在家庭以外寻求建议或治疗,最常报告的建议或治疗来源是私人医疗服务提供者(39.4%),其次是卫生中心/地区医院(31.3%)。

结论

ITN分发和其他疟疾预防干预措施在很大程度上使包括森林访客在内的高风险群体受益。将《2020年柬埔寨疟疾调查》结果与2017年的调查结果进行比较,可以明显看出森林访客对LLIN/LLIHN的使用率有了显著提高。然而,还需要做更多工作,以确保森林访客在林区工作和停留期间通过使用LLIN或驱蚊剂得到保护。此外,鉴于高危人群中睡在LLIN下的比例在过去几年有所下降,该项目将必须制定战略,以确保随着疟疾高发地区病例进一步减少,社区不会放松对疟疾的警惕。提高公众意识对于柬埔寨消除疟疾且确保疟疾不会再次出现或重新流行至关重要。

相似文献

1
Cambodia malaria indicator survey 2020: Implications for malaria elimination.2020年柬埔寨疟疾指标调查:对疟疾消除的启示
Malariaworld J. 2021 Jul 1;12:5. eCollection 2021.
2
Behavioural determinants of malaria risk, prevention, and care-seeking behaviours among forest-goers in Cambodia.柬埔寨森林居民疟疾风险、预防和求医行为的行为决定因素。
Malar J. 2022 Dec 2;21(1):362. doi: 10.1186/s12936-022-04390-5.
3
Assessment of net lending strategy to better reach mobile and migrant populations in malaria endemic areas of Cambodia.评估净借贷策略,以更好地覆盖柬埔寨疟疾流行地区的流动和移民人群。
Infect Dis Poverty. 2018 Oct 18;7(1):107. doi: 10.1186/s40249-018-0489-1.
4
Ownership and utilization of bed nets and reasons for use or non-use of bed nets among community members at risk of malaria along the Thai-Myanmar border.泰国-缅甸边境地区有疟疾感染风险的社区成员中蚊帐的所有权、使用情况以及使用或不使用蚊帐的原因。
Malar J. 2021 Jul 6;20(1):305. doi: 10.1186/s12936-021-03837-5.
5
Monitoring of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) coverage versus utilization: a community-based survey in malaria endemic villages of Central India.长效杀虫蚊帐(LLINs)覆盖率与利用率监测:印度中部疟疾流行村庄的社区调查。
Malar J. 2017 Nov 17;16(1):467. doi: 10.1186/s12936-017-2117-0.
6
Access to and use of long-lasting insecticidal nets and factors associated with non-use among communities in malaria-endemic areas of Al Hudaydah governorate in the Tihama region, west of Yemen.也门西部提哈马地区胡代达省疟疾流行区社区长效驱虫蚊帐的获取与使用情况以及与未使用相关的因素。
Malar J. 2017 Jun 9;16(1):244. doi: 10.1186/s12936-017-1894-9.
7
The use of respondent‑driven sampling to assess febrile illness treatment-seeking behaviours among forest-goers in Cambodia and Vietnam.应用应答驱动抽样法评估柬埔寨和越南森林工作者发热求医行为。
Malar J. 2021 Dec 20;20(1):477. doi: 10.1186/s12936-021-04001-9.
8
Household ownership and utilization of insecticide-treated nets under the Regional Artemisinin Resistance Initiative in Myanmar.缅甸区域青蒿素抗性倡议下家庭对经杀虫剂处理蚊帐的拥有情况及使用情况
Trop Med Health. 2018 Jul 31;46:27. doi: 10.1186/s41182-018-0111-z. eCollection 2018.
9
Low long-lasting insecticide nets (LLINs) use among household members for protection against mosquito bite in Kersa, Eastern Ethiopia.在埃塞俄比亚东部的凯萨,家庭成员对长效驱虫蚊帐(LLINs)的使用频率低,无法有效防止蚊虫叮咬。
BMC Public Health. 2012 Oct 29;12:914. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-914.
10
Barriers in distribution, ownership and utilization of insecticide-treated mosquito nets among migrant population in Myanmar, 2016: a mixed methods study.2016 年缅甸流动人口中驱虫蚊帐的分发、拥有和使用障碍:混合方法研究。
Malar J. 2019 May 14;18(1):172. doi: 10.1186/s12936-019-2800-4.

引用本文的文献

1
Rethinking village malaria workers in Cambodia: Perspectives from the communities, programme managers, and international stakeholders.重新审视柬埔寨的乡村疟疾防治人员:来自社区、项目管理人员及国际利益相关者的观点
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2024 Dec 11;4(12):e0003962. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003962. eCollection 2024.
2
Comparing the roles of community health workers for malaria control and elimination in Cambodia and Tanzania.比较柬埔寨和坦桑尼亚在疟疾控制和消除方面的社区卫生工作者的作用。
BMJ Glob Health. 2023 Dec 9;8(12):e013593. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013593.
3
Assessing the population's correct knowledge of malaria in Malaysia: a vital component for malaria elimination certification.

本文引用的文献

1
Effect of generalised access to early diagnosis and treatment and targeted mass drug administration on Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Eastern Myanmar: an observational study of a regional elimination programme.缅甸东部普遍获得早期诊断和治疗以及有针对性的大规模药物治疗对恶性疟原虫疟疾的影响:区域消除规划的观察性研究。
Lancet. 2018 May 12;391(10133):1916-1926. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30792-X. Epub 2018 Apr 24.
2
Bias in observational study designs: cross sectional studies.观察性研究设计中的偏倚:横断面研究
BMJ. 2015 Mar 6;350:h1286. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1286.
3
Cross-sectional studies.
评估马来西亚民众对疟疾的正确认知:消除疟疾认证的重要组成部分。
Malar J. 2023 Sep 12;22(1):267. doi: 10.1186/s12936-023-04704-1.
横断面研究。
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Jul;146(1):127-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.05.005.
4
Constructing socio-economic status indices: how to use principal components analysis.构建社会经济地位指数:如何使用主成分分析
Health Policy Plan. 2006 Nov;21(6):459-68. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czl029. Epub 2006 Oct 9.