背景:最近在坦桑尼亚开发了一种用于散发挥发性拟除虫菊酯的经处理的织物装置,该装置可在几个月内防止夜间叮咬的按蚊和库蚊。在这里,社区最终用户的感知提供了这样的跨氟菊酯发射器,主要是为了保护它们免受人类虫媒病毒的日常活动伊蚊载体的攻击,这些病毒经常在户外攻击人们,在太子港进行了评估,海地。
方法:根据向贫困至中产阶级城市社区的参与家庭分配的氟菊酯散发物,对最终用户家庭的问卷调查和深入访谈进行了补充,并进行了常规和基于Photovoice的焦点小组讨论。对观察结果进行了综合评估,以评估用户对保护和可接受性的看法,并征求今后改进和推广的意见。
结果:许多参与者积极看待发射者,一些参与者概述了相对于当前替代方案的各种优势,尽管有些人表达了对气味的担忧,健康危害,笨重,缺乏吸引力和未来成本。大多数参与者对蚊子防护表示中等至高度满意,尤其是在室内。对其他节肢动物害虫的保护也被普遍报道,虽然满意度是高度可变的。报告了各种使用做法,其中一些可能是针对夜间在室内休息的库蚊,而不是伊蚊在白天在户外攻击它们。感知到的保护耐久性各不相同:虽然许多参与者注意到几个月来一些缓慢的损失,其他人注意到几天内迅速下降。一些参与者特别将功效损失归因于户外使用和暴露于风或湿气。许多人对令人满意的保护水平表示了严格的期望,即使是一次蚊子叮咬也被认为是不令人满意的。一些参与者认为发射者优于粉丝,床单,喷雾和线圈,但令人担忧的是,一些人更喜欢它们而不是蚊帐,因此停止使用后者。
结论:海地最终用户的共同观点与巴西的类似研究以及秘鲁最近的流行病学证据一致,表明其他氟苯环素释放剂产品可以预防虫媒病毒感染。尽管这些令人鼓舞的社会学观察结果与海地平行昆虫学评估对伊蚊着陆率的影响几乎可以忽略不计的证据形成鲜明对比,坦桑尼亚,巴西和秘鲁,没有其他理由怀疑海地最终用户在此表达的普遍令人鼓舞的观点。
BACKGROUND: A treated fabric device for emanating the volatile pyrethroid transfluthrin was recently developed in Tanzania that protected against night-biting Anopheles and Culex mosquitoes for several months. Here perceptions of community end users provided with such transfluthrin emanators, primarily intended to protect them against day-active Aedes vectors of human arboviruses that often attack people outdoors, were assessed in Port-au-Prince,
Haiti.
METHODS: Following the distribution of transfluthrin emanators to participating households in poor-to-middle class urban neighbourhoods, questionnaire surveys and in-depth interviews of end-user households were supplemented with conventional and Photovoice-based focus group discussions. Observations were assessed synthetically to evaluate user perceptions of protection and acceptability, and to solicit advice for improving and promoting them in the future.
RESULTS: Many participants viewed emanators positively and several outlined various advantages over current alternatives, although some expressed concerns about smell, health hazards, bulkiness, unattractiveness and future cost. Most participants expressed moderate to high satisfaction with protection against mosquitoes, especially indoors. Protection against other arthropod pests was also commonly reported, although satisfaction levels were highly variable. Diverse use practices were reported, some of which probably targeted nocturnal Culex resting indoors, rather than Aedes attacking them outdoors during daylight hours. Perceived durability of protection varied: While many participants noted some slow loss over months, others noted rapid decline within days. A few participants specifically attributed efficacy loss to outdoor use and exposure to wind or moisture. Many expressed stringent expectations of satisfactory protection levels, with even a single mosquito bite considered unsatisfactory. Some participants considered emanators superior to fans, bedsheets, sprays and coils, but it is concerning that several preferred them to bed nets and consequently stopped using the latter.
CONCLUSIONS: The perspectives shared by Haitian end-users are consistent with those from similar studies in Brazil and recent epidemiological evidence from Peru that other transfluthrin emanator products can protect against arbovirus infection. While these encouraging sociological observations contrast starkly with evidence of essentially negligible effects upon Aedes landing rates from parallel entomological assessments across
Haiti, Tanzania, Brazil and Peru, no other reason to doubt the generally encouraging views expressed herein by Haitian end users could be identified.