• 1.

    Bhatt S et al., 2013. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature 496: 504507.

  • 2.

    Shepard DS, Undurraga EA, Halasa YA, Stanaway JD, 2016. The global economic burden of dengue: a systematic analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 16: 935941.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Suaya JA et al., 2009. Cost of dengue cases in eight countries in the Americas and Asia: a prospective study. Am J Trop Med Hyg 80: 846855.

  • 4.

    Palma-Pinedo H, Cabrera R, Yagui-Moscoso M, 2016. Factors behind people’s reluctance towards dengue vector control actions in three districts in northern Peru. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica 33: 1320.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Harris ML, Carter ED, 2019. Muddying the waters: a political ecology of mosquito-borne disease in coastal Ecuador. Heal Place 57 : 330338.

  • 6.

    Wilder-Smith A, Ooi EE, Horstick O, Wills B, 2019. Dengue. Lancet 393 : 350363.

  • 7.

    Ferguson NM, Rodríguez-Barraquer I, Dorigatti I, Mier-Y-Teran-Romero L, Laydon DJ, Cummings DAT, 2016. Benefits and risks of the Sanofi Pasteur dengue vaccine: modeling optimal deployment. Science353: 10331036.

  • 8.

    Capeding MR et al., 2014. Clinical efficacy and safety of a novel tetravalent dengue vaccine in healthy children in Asia: a phase 3, randomised, observer-masked, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 384: P1358–P1365.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Ooi EE, Goh KT, Gubler DJ, 2006. Dengue prevention and 35 years of vector control in Singapore. Emerg Infect Dis 12: 887893.

  • 10.

    Messina JP et al., 2014. Global spread of dengue virus types: mapping the 70 year history. Trends Microbiol 22: 138146.

  • 11.

    Kraemer MUG et al., 2015. The global distribution of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. Elife 4: e08347.

  • 12.

    Ranson H, Burhani J, Lumjuan N, Black WC IV, 2010. Insecticide resistance in dengue vectors. TropIKA. Available at: http://journal.tropika.net/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2078-86062010000100003&lng=en&nrm=iso.

  • 13.

    Pimsamarn S, Sornpeng W, Akksilp S, Paeporn P, Limpawitthayakul M, 2009. Detection of insecticide resistance in Aedes aegypti to organophosphate and synthetic pyrethroid compounds in the north-east of Thailand. Dengue Bull 33: 194202.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Marcombe S, Chonephetsarath S, Thammavong P, Brey PT, 2018. Alternative insecticides for larval control of the dengue vector Aedes aegypti in Lao PDR: insecticide resistance and semi-field trial study. Parasit Vectors 11: 616.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Reyes-Castro PA, Castro-Luque L, Díaz-Caravantes R, Walker KR, Hayden MH, Ernst KC, 2017. Outdoor spatial spraying against dengue: a false sense of security among inhabitants of Hermosillo, Mexico. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 11: e0005611.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Horstick O, Morrison AC, 2014. Dengue disease surveillance: improving data for dengue control. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 8: e3311.

  • 17.

    Wilder-Smith A et al., 2012. Dengue tools: innovative tools and strategies for the surveillance and control of dengue. Glob Health Action 5: 17273.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    WHO , 2012. Global Strategy for Dengue Prevention and Control 2012–2020. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Available at: doi:/entity/denguecontrol/9789241504034/en/index.html.

  • 19.

    O’Neill SL, 2018. The use of wolbachia by the world mosquito program to interrupt transmission of Aedes aegypti transmitted viruses. Adv Exp Med Biol1062: 355360.

  • 20.

    Hemingway J, Beaty BJ, Rowland M, Scott TW, Sharp BL, 2006. The Innovative Vector Control Consortium: improved control of mosquito-borne diseases improved control of mosquito-borne diseases. Trends Parasitol 22:308312.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Flores HA, O’Neill SL, 2018. Controlling vector-borne diseases by releasing modified mosquitoes. Nat Rev Microbiol 16: 508518.

  • 22.

    Parks W, Lloyd L, 2004. Planning Social Mobilization and Communication for Dengue Fever Prevention and Control: A Step-by-Step Guide. Available at: https://www.who.int/tdr/publications/documents/planning_dengue.pdf.

  • 23.

    Tapia-Conyer R, Méndez-Galván J, Burciaga-Zúñiga P, 2012. Community participation in the prevention and control of dengue: the patio limpio strategy in Mexico. Paediatr Int Child Health 32 (Suppl 1): 110113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Spiegel J, Bennett S, Hattersley L, Hayden MH, Kittayapong P, Nalim S, Wang DNC, Zielinski-Gutiérrez E, Gubler D, 2005. Barriers and bridges to prevention and control of dengue: the need for a social-ecological approach. EcoHealth 2: 273290.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Toledo Romani ME, Vanlerberghe V, Perez D, Lefevre P, Ceballos E, Bandera D, Baly Gil A, Van der Stuyft P, 2007. Achieving sustainability of community-based dengue control in Santiago de Cuba. Soc Sci Med 64: 976988.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Hernandez-Alvarez C, Arosteguí J, Suazo-Laguna H, Reyes RM, Coloma J, Harris E, Andersson N, Ledogar RJ, 2017. Community cost-benefit discussions that launched the Camino Verde intervention in Nicaragua. BMC Public Health 17 (Suppl 1):396.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Ferguson NM, 2018. Challenges and opportunities in controlling mosquito-borne infections. Nature 559: 490497.

  • 28.

    Pang T, Mak TK, Gubler DJ, 2017. Prevention and control of dengue—the light at the end of the tunnel. Lancet Infect Dis 17: e79e87.

  • 29.

    de Lima TFM et al., 2016. DengueME: a tool for the modeling and simulation of dengue spatiotemporal dynamics. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13: 920.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Schmidt C, Phippard A, Olsen JM, Wirt K, Riviera A, Crawley A, Waterman S, Ernst K, 2017. Kidenga: public engagement for detection and prevention of Aedes-borne viral diseases. Online J Public Health Inform 9: e111.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Kamanga A, Renn S, Pollard D, Bridges DJ, Chirwa B, Pinchoff J, Larsen DA, Winters AM, 2015. Open-source satellite enumeration to map households: planning and targeting indoor residual spraying for malaria. Malar J 14: 345.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Parra C, Cernuzzi L, Rojas R, Denis D, Rivas S, Paciello J, Coloma J, Holston J, 2020. Synergies between technology, participation, and citizen science in a community-based dengue prevention program. Am Behav Sci 64: 18501870.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    Andersson N, Arostegui J, Nava-Aguilera E, Harris E, Ledogar RJ, 2017. Camino Verde (The Green Way): evidence-based community mobilisation for dengue control in Nicaragua and Mexico: feasibility study and study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health 11 (Suppl 2):407.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    Arosteguí J, Ledogar RJ, Coloma J, Hernández-Alvarez C, Suazo-Laguna H, Cárcamo A, Reyes RM, Belli A, Andersson N, Harris E, 2017. The Camino Verde intervention in Nicaragua, 2004–2012. BMC Public Health 17 (Suppl 1):406.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    Ledogar RJ et al., 2017. Mobilising communities for Aedes aegypti control: the SEPA approach. BMC Public Health 17 (Suppl 1):403.

  • 36.

    Holston J, Issarny V, Parra C, 2016. Engineering software assemblies for participatory democracy: the participatory budgeting use case. Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion. May 2016, pp. 573582. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/2889160.2889221.

  • 37.

    Holston J, 2008. Citizenship made strange. Insurgent Citizenship: Disjunctions of Democracy and Modernity in Brazil. Available at: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8533.pdf.

  • 38.

    Focks D, Alexander N, 2007. Multicountry study of Aedes aegypti pupal productivity survey methodology: findings and recommendations. Dengue Bulletin TDR/WHO 31: 192–200.

  • 39.

    Focks DA, Brenner RJ, Hayes J, Daniels E, 2000. Transmission thresholds for dengue in terms of Aedes aegypti pupae per person with discussion of their utility in source reduction efforts. Am J Trop Med Hyg 62: 1118.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40.

    Focks DA, Chadee DD, 1997. Pupal survey: An epidemiologically significant surveillance method for Aedes aegypti: an example using data from Trinidad. Am J Trop Med Hyg 56: 159167.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41.

    Gallis JA, Li F, Turner EL, Yu H, 2018. Cvcrand and cptest: commands for efficient design and analysis of cluster randomized trials using constrained randomization and permutation tests. Stata J 18: 357378.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42.

    Andersson N et al., 2015. Evidence based community mobilization for dengue prevention in Nicaragua and Mexico (Camino Verde, the Green Way): cluster randomized controlled trial. BMJ 351: h3267.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43.

    Ledogar RJ et al., 2017. When communities are really in control: ethical issues surrounding community mobilisation for dengue prevention in Mexico and Nicaragua. BMC Public Health 17 (Suppl 1):410.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44.

    Arosteguí J, Coloma J, Hernández-Alvarez C, Suazo-Laguna H, Balmaseda A, Harris E, Andersson N, Ledogar RJ, 2017. Beyond efficacy in water containers: Temephos and household entomological indices in six studies between 2005 and 2013 in Managua, Nicaragua. BMC Public Health 17 (Suppl 1):434.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45.

    Pinchoff J, Serino A, Merritt AP, Hunter G, Silva M, Parikh P, Hewett PC, 2019. Evidence-based process for prioritizing positive behaviors for promotion: Zika prevention in Latin America and the Caribbean and applicability to future health emergency responses. Glob Heal Sci Pract 7: 404417.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46.

    McGraw EA, O’Neill SL, 2013. Beyond insecticides: new thinking on an ancient problem. Nat Rev Microbiol 11: 181193.

  • 47.

    Castro M, Sánchez L, Pérez D, Carbonell N, Lefèvre P, Vanlerberghe V, Van der Stuyft P, 2012. A community empowerment strategy embedded in a routine dengue vector control programme: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 106: 315321.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48.

    Badurdeen S et al., 2013. Sharing experiences: towards an evidence based model of dengue surveillance and outbreak response in Latin America and Asia. BMC Public Health 13: 607.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49.

    Tana S, 2013. Building and analyzing an innovative community-centered dengue-ecosystem management intervention in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Pathog Glob Health 106: 469478.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 50.

    Finkelman J, 2014. Innovative community-based ecosystem management for dengue and Chagas disease prevention in low and middle income countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 109: 8990.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 51.

    Bartumeus F et al., 2019. Sustainable innovation in vector control requires strong partnerships with communities. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 13: e0007204.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 52.

    Wolbers M, Kleinschmidt I, Simmons CP, Donnelly CA, 2012. Considerations in the design of clinical trials to test novel entomological approaches to dengue control. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 6: e1937.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DengueChat: A Social and Software Platform for Community-based Arbovirus Vector Control

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Anthropology and Social Apps Lab, University of California, Berkeley, California;
  • | 2 Sustainable Sciences Institute, Managua, Nicaragua;
  • | 3 Division of Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California

ABSTRACT.

The mosquito Aedes aegypti transmits arboviral diseases at extraordinary rates. Dengue alone afflicts 50 to 100 million people each year, with more than 3 billion at risk globally. This indicates that current approaches to prevention and control are inadequate, and that a paradigm shift from one that largely promotes vertical chemical-based control and vaccine development to one that also concentrates on eliminating the mosquito through actions by the communities it plagues is necessary. We have developed a new social and software platform, DengueChat (denguechat.org), to advance community interventions in arbovirus vector control. It is an interactive platform combining open-source digital communication technologies with face-to-face assemblies. It promotes resident participation in evidence collection, reporting, and analysis, and it incorporates pedagogic information, key messaging, and game concepts to motivate communities to implement vector reduction strategies. Using DengueChat, we conducted a 19-month pilot study in five neighborhoods of Managua, Nicaragua. The results strongly suggest that using the software produced value-added features that enhance community engagement. We measured the entomological and behavioral impacts at different time points and relative risk reduction of entomological indices at the end of the study. The entomological results showed significant risk reductions in disease transmission: Ae. aegypti larvae and pupae indices were reduced by approximately 44% in neighborhoods using DengueChat during one epidemic year, whereas control neighborhoods experienced an increase of more than 500%. A cluster permutation test determined that the probability of household positivity was significantly reduced in neighborhoods that participated in DengueChat compared with the reference neighborhoods (P = 0.0265). Therefore, DengueChat is a promising resource for vector control.

    • Supplemental Materials (PDF 3,270 KB)

Author Notes

Address correspondence to Josefina Coloma, Division of Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, School of Public Health, University of California, 1951 Oxford Street, 185 LKS 500A, Berkeley, CA 94720. E-mail: colomaj@berkeley.edu

Financial support: The authors gratefully acknowledge funding for the development and implementation of DengueChat from the UBS Optimus Foundation (4841), the FIRST grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1071295/7615sc) and the Instituto Carlos Slim de la Salud (482201/8031sc), USAID (AID-OAA-A-16-00048), and the Social Apps Lab and CITRIS (Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society) at the University of California, Berkeley.

Authors’ addresses: James Holston, Department of Anthropology and Social Apps Lab, University of California, Berkeley, CA, E-mail: jholston@berkeley.edu. Harold Suazo-Laguna, Community Projects, Instituto de Ciencias Sostenibles, Los Robles Etapa II, Managua, Nicaragua, E-mail: suazolagunaharold@gmail.com. Eva Harris, Division of Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, E-mail: eharris@berkeley.edu. Josefina Coloma, Division of Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, and Sustainable Sciences Institute, San Francisco, CA, E-mail: colomaj@berkeley.edu.

Save