Insecticide treated curtains and residual insecticide treatment to control Aedes aegypti: An acceptability study in Santiago de Cuba

Abstract

BackgroundWithin 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 findingsWe 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/significanceAcceptability 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.

Assessment of community support for Wolbachia-mediated population suppression as a control method for Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in a community cohort in Puerto Rico

“…Other factors that have been associated with vector control interventions acceptance include attitudes toward government-run vector control operations and opinions of vector control organizations [ 38 , 42 ]. The Puerto Rico Vector Control Unit is part of a private nonprofit organization that regularly interacts with COPA communities through educational activities and has a positive reputation on the island.…”

“…A total of 4,724 participants were enrolled during the project baseline in 2018-2019, of which 1,528 (32%) answered the vector control interventions questions. Among them, median age was 37 years [IQR: [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44], and 962 (63%) were female. A total of 972 (64%) participants reported an education level below a bachelor's degree, and 858 (56%) participants reported an annual household income of less than $20,000 (Table 1).…”

“…However, there was no difference in Wolbachia suppression acceptance by other related factors, including dengue risk perception, perception of mosquitoes as a community problem, expenditure on mosquito control, or awareness of mosquitoes as vectors for disease. A lack of correlation between risk perception and acceptability of vector control interventions has been reported before [42]. An additional consideration is that the baseline survey was conducted during a period of minimal arbovirus transmission on the island, likely further lowering risk perception.…”

‘Where are the dead flies!’: perceptions of local communities towards the deployment of Tiny Targets to control tsetse in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

“…Previous studies on malaria and dengue have shown that successful vector control operations were associated with positive community reactions or behaviour towards the technology. [18][19][20][21] Negative reactions were often linkedwith communities not being properly informed, consulted or involved. Several tsetse control projects in Uganda, 22 23 Kenya, 24 Ivory Coast, 25 Ethiopia 24 and Sudan 26 have shownthat community acceptance is crucial for an intervention's success.…”

Family Vector Control Response Kit: Equipping Households to Prevent Amplification of Aedes-transmitted Diseases

“…In Cuba there was strong acceptance of LLIC initially but that enthusiasm waned over time because of lowered perceived e cacy. The HH expected to observe dead mosquitoes beneath the curtains in that trial 34 .…”