• 1.

    Weaver SC, 2013. Urbanization and geographic expansion of zoonotic arboviral diseases: mechanisms and potential strategies for prevention. Trends Microbiol 21: 360363.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Paixão ES, Teixeira MG, Rodrigues LC, 2018. Zika, chikungunya and dengue: the causes and threats of new and re-emerging arboviral diseases. BMJ Glob Health 3: e000530.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Gubler DJ, 2002. The global emergence/resurgence of arboviral diseases as public health problems. Arch Med Res 33: 330342.

  • 4.

    Tjaden NB, Suk JE, Fischer D, Thomas SM, Beierkuhnlein C, Semenza JC, 2017. Modelling the effects of global climate change on chikungunya transmission in the 21st century. Sci Rep 7: 3813.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Bellini R, Zeller H, Van Bortel W, 2014. A review of the vector management methods to prevent and control outbreaks of West Nile virus infection and the challenge for Europe. Parasit Vectors 7: 323.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Ibrahim NK, Abalkhail B, Rady M, Al-Bar H, 2009. An educational programme on dengue fever prevention and control for females in Jeddah high schools. East Mediterr Health J 15: 10581067.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Wisner B, Adams J, 2012. Vector and pest control. Environmental Health in Emergencies and Disasters : A Practical Guide. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Yasuoka J, Mangione TW, Spielman A, Levins R, 2006. Impact of education on knowledge, agricultural practices, and community actions for mosquito control and mosquito-borne disease prevention in rice ecosystems in Sri Lanka. Am J Trop Med Hyg 74: 10341042.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Marka A et al. 2013. West Nile virus state of the art report of MALWEST project. Int J Environ Res Public Health 10: 65346610.

  • 10.

    Rozendaal JA, 1997. Vector Control: Methods for Use by Individuals and Communities. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Available at: http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/41968. Accessed June 24, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    CDC, 2012. Stormwater Management and Vector Breeding Habitats. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/factsheets/Stormwater-Factsheet.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    WHO, 2017. Framework for a National Vector Control Need Assessment. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

  • 13.

    Arunachalam N, Tana S, Espino F, Kittayapong P, Abeyewickrem W, Wai KT, Tyagi BK, Kroeger A, Sommerfeld J, Petzold M, 2010. Eco-bio-social determinants of dengue vector breeding: a multicountry study in urban and periurban Asia. Bull World Health Organ 88: 173184.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Bodner D, LaDeau SL, Biehler D, Kirchoff N, Leisnham PT, 2016. Effectiveness of print education at reducing urban mosquito infestation through improved resident-based management. PLoS One 11: e0155011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    LaBeaud AD, Glinka A, Kippes C, King CH, 2009. School-based health promotion for mosquito-borne disease prevention in children. J Pediatr 155: 590592.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Al-Muhandis N, Hunter PR, 2011. The value of educational messages embedded in a community-based approach to combat dengue fever: a systematic review and meta regression analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 5: e1278.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Heintze C, Garrido MV, Kroeger A, 2007. What do community-based dengue control programmes achieve? A systematic review of published evaluations. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 101: 317325.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP, 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6: e1000097.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Effective Public Health Practice Project, 1998. Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Available at: https://merst.ca/ephpp/. Accessed August 4, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Thomas BH, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S, 2004. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 1: 176184.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), 2017. Suggested Risk of Bias Criteria for EPOC Reviews. EPOC Resources for Review Authors. Oxford, United Kingdom: Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford. Available at: http://epoc.cochrane.org/resources/epoc-resources-review-authors. Accessed August 4, 2018.

  • 22.

    Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), 2017. Data Collection Form. Resources for Review Authors Available at: https://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/Resources-for-authors2017/good_practice_data_extraction_form.doc. Accessed August 4, 2018.

  • 23.

    Winch PJ, Leontsini E, Rigau-Pérez JG, Clark GG, Ruiz-Pérez M, Gubler DJ, 2002. Community-based dengue prevention programs in Puerto Rico: impact on knowledge, behavior, and residential mosquito infestation. Am J Trop Med Hyg 67: 363370.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Lennon JL, Coombs DW, 2007. The utility of a board game for dengue haemorrhagic fever health education. Health Educ 107: 290306.

  • 25.

    Arunachalam N, Tyagi BK, Samuel M, Krishnamoorthi R, Manavalan R, Tewari SC, Ashokkumar V, Kroeger A, Sommerfeld J, Petzold M, 2012. Community-based control of Aedes aegypti by adoption of eco-health methods in Chennai city, India. Pathog Glob Health 106: 488496.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Madeira NG, Macharelli CA, Pedras JF, Delfino MC, 2002. Education in primary school as a strategy to control dengue. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop 35: 221226.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Therawiwat M, Fungladda W, Kaewkungwal J, Imamee N, Steckler A, 2005. Community-based approach for prevention and control of dengue hemorrhagic fever in Kanchanaburi province, Thailand. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 36: 14391449.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Saurabh S, Veerakumar AM, Kalaiselvi S, Palanivel C, 2014. Effectiveness of individual health education on the practice of dengue fever prevention in an urban area of Puducherry, India. Indian J Community Health 26: 434437.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Sreedevi A, Burru R, Rao G, Yalamanchili P, Subhaprada C, Kumari V, Kala S, Aruna M, 2016. Study on awareness about vector borne diseases and education about preventive measures in rural field practice areas of Kurnool medical college, Kurnool. Int J Med Sci Public Health 5: 18031807.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Choo MS, Blackwood RA, 2017. School-based health education in Yucatan, Mexico about the chikungunya virus and mosquito illness prevention. Infect Dis Rep 9: 6894.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Tram T, Anh N, Hung N, Lan N, Cam L, 2003. The impact of health education on mother’s knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of dengue haemorrhagic fever. Dengue Bull 27: 174180.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Suwanbamrung C, Kusol K, Tantraseneerate K, Promsupa S, Doungsin T, Thongchan S, Laupsa M, 2015. Developing the participatory education program for dengue prevention and control in the primary school, southern region, Thailand. Health 7: 12551267.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    Suwanbamrung C, Tapalak N, Jitchun C, Promsuwan C, Prosupa S, Muenraj Y, Dumpan A, 2012. Student capacity building of dengue prevention and control: a study of an Islamic school, southern Thailand. Health 4: 366376.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    Klasnja P, Pratt W, 2012. Healthcare in the pocket: mapping the space of mobile-phone health interventions. J Biomed Inform 45: 184198.

  • 35.

    Kroeger A, Meyer R, Mancheno M, González M, 2007. Health education for community-based malaria control: an intervention study in Ecuador, Colombia and Nicaragua. Trop Med Int Health 1: 836846.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36.

    Ayi I, Nonaka D, Adjovu JK, Hanafusa S, Jimba M, Bosompem KM, Mizoue T, Takeuchi T, Boakye DA, Kobayashi J, 2010. School-based participatory health education for malaria control in Ghana: engaging children as health messengers. Malar J 9: 98.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37.

    Dike N, Onwujekwe O, Ojukwu J, Ikeme A, Uzochukwu B, Shu E, 2006. Influence of education and knowledge on perceptions and practices to control malaria in southeast Nigeria. Soc Sci Med 63: 103106.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38.

    Straughan PT, Ng EH, Lee HP, 1998. A randomized trial of the use of print material and personal contact to improve mammography uptake among screening non-attenders in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singapore 27: 838842.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39.

    Harvey HD, Fleming P, 2003. The readability and audience acceptance of printed health promotion materials used by environmental health departments. J Environ Health 65: 2228.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40.

    Morony S, Flynn M, McCaffery KJ, Jansen J, Webster AC, 2015. Readability of written materials for CKD patients: a systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis 65: 842850.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41.

    Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, Biondo PD, Cummings GG, 2012. Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract 18: 1218.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

Effect of Education on Improving Knowledge and Behavior for Arboviral Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Public Health of Amadora, Lisbon, Portugal;
  • | 2 London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom;
  • | 3 Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden;
  • | 4 International Livestock Research Institute, Ha Noi, Vietnam;
  • | 5 Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
Restricted access

Arboviral diseases are responsible for a high burden of disease in humans, and a significant part of disease risk reduction efforts relies on vector control methods. The elimination of potential breeding sites for the mosquito vectors and a higher level of literacy by the populations at risk could present a sustainable and environmentally friendly solution. This review aims to assess the efficacy of educational interventions for arboviral diseases on knowledge and self-reported behavior. A systematic literature search was performed using Cochrane, EMBASE, Global Health, and PubMed. References of articles retrieved were searched manually for further studies. Critical appraisal of the selected articles was performed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool, and studies with a control group were further assessed through the Cochrane’s risk of bias tool. A summary narrative of the results and a meta-analysis was conducted. Fourteen studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Overall, there was an increase in knowledge and in self-reported adoption of protective measures. No effect was found using solely printed material. A meta-analysis was performed separately for the two outcomes measured, which produced a mean standardized difference of 1.86 (95% CI: 1.33–2.39) in knowledge scores compared with the control groups. Regarding the self-reported protective behavior, the results show a summary value of odds ratio of 5.23 (95% CI: 3.09–7.36). Most of the educational interventions had a positive impact on knowledge and self-reported adoption of protective measures. More research producing stronger evidence and evaluating long-term impact is needed.

Author Notes

Address correspondence to Maria Margarida Paixão, Praça Conde da Lousã, Public Health Unit of Amadora, Lisbon 2720-122, Portugal. E-mail: margaridacpaixao@gmail.com

Financial support: J. F. L. was funded by the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas, grant number 2016-00364).

Authors’ addresses: Maria Margarida Paixão, Public Health Unit of Amadora, Lisbon, Portugal, E-mail: margaridacpaixao@gmail.com. Tala Ballouz, Internal Medicine Department, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon, E-mail: ballouztala26@gmail.com. Johanna F. Lindahl, ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya, E-mail: j.lindahl@cgiar.org.

Save