1. References:
1. SousaCA, ClairouinM,Seixas G, ViveirosB, NovoMT,et al. (2012) Ongoingoutbreakof denguetype 1 in the AutonomousRegion ofMadeira,Portugal:preliminaryreport.EuroSurveill17: 8–11
2. Seixas G (2012) Aedes (Stegomyia)aegypti (Diptera,Culicidae)from MadeiraIsland:geographicaloriginandinsecticide resistanceUniversidadeNova deLisboa.
3. NazarethT, Teodósio R,Porto G, GonçalvesL, Seixas G, et al. (2014) Strengtheningtheperception-assessmenttoolsfor dengueprevention:a cross-sectionalsurveyin a temperate region (Madeira, Portugal).BMCPublicHealth14: 39.
Acknowledgements:
ProjectoFCT- “Dengueno ArquipélagodaMadeira”- Ref: PTDC/SAL-EPI/115853/2009
GABBA FCT Bolsa de doutoramento Ref : SFRH / BD / 51012 / 2010
Planning dengue-preventive campaigns:
Aedes aegypti’s breeding sites and community perceptions in Madeira Island
futuros surtos.
p < 0.001 (Mann-Whitney test)
I -
- Flower pot dish (52.7%)
- Out-door sinks (35.7%)
- Floor water accumulation (23.3%)
- Flower jar (21.7%)
- Pet water dish (18.8%)
- Flower pot/ bucket (14.1%)
- Rubbin bish (uncovered) (10.3%)
- Rain gutters (6.9%)
- Other material (toys, ashtrays, etc.) (6.8%)
- Water flower (5.7 %)
- Rubbish (on th floor) (5.4%)
- Toleit pan (not used often) (2.3%)
- Water tank/well (2.3%)
- Fridge trays (2.2%)
- Lake/cascade (1.9%)
- Drum/container (1.2%)
- Building material (1.2%)
- Rubble (1.1%)
- Swiming pool (untreated and uncovered) (0.5%)
- Tyres (0.5%)
- Pieces of glass on wall (0.3 %)
Flower-pot dishes were the most frequent Ae.
aegypti’s breeding site. Results suggest an
atypical infestation pattern consisting of
décor/leisure containers (rather than the
commonly reported waste-disposal and water-
supply ones).
This work constitutes the first entomological
report in European countries.
3.1.
2.
4.
5.
Two cross-sectional surveys were performed (A): one entomological to describe the presence / type of breeding sites in community’s
households, and one epidemiological, to assess individuals’ perceptions regarding the elimination of breeding sites. The latter was evaluated
through a score-based tool (B) which measures the level of understanding of this proposed behavior [3].
1GABBA Doctoral Program, ICBAS, Abel Salazar Institute for the Biomedical Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 2GHTM-Global Health and Tropical Medicine; 3Unidade Clínica Tropical, Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical, Lisboa, Portugal; 4Basic & Clinical Research on Iron
Biology, IBMC, Institute for Molecular and Cellular Biology, Porto, Portugal; 5Unidade de Saúde Pública e Internacional e Bioestatística, Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical, Lisboa, Portugal; 6Centro de Estatística e Aplicações da Universidade de Lisboa (CEAUL), Lisboa, Portugal; 7Unidade
de Parasitologia Médica, Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical, Lisboa, Portugal; 8Departamento de Saúde, Planeamento e Administração Geral, Instituto de Administração da Saúde e Assuntos Sociais, Madeira, Portugal;
Nazareth T1,2,, Teodósio R2,3, Porto G1,4, Gonçalves L2,5,6, Novo MT2,7, Seixas G2,7, Silva AC8, Sousa CA2,7
Concept 1 - Knew that mosquitoes can transmit diseases
Concept 2 - Presented a correct example of a mosquito-borne disease
Concept 3 - Recognized the presence of “mosquitoes that can transmit disease”
Concept 4 - Considered the high-possibility of dengue emergence in Madeira
Concept 5 - Knew that mosquitoes can breed inside houses
Concept 6 - Considered the relevance of the vector-control in the domestic area
Concept 7 - Recognized water-containers as a mosquito breeding contributor
Concept 8 – Did not recognize false* mosquito breeding contributors
Concept 9 - Recognized breeding-site removal as a ‘effective’ measure
Concept 10 – Did not recognize erroneous practices as ‘effective ‘
Households WITHOUT breeding sites
Residents reveal an EP-score > 7
Households WITH breeding sites
Residents reveal an EP-score < 7
A – Entomological and epidemiological cross-sectional survey B – Essential Perception Score (EP-score, 0-10 points)
C - List of prospected breeding-sites
and respective prevalence
D – Scheme of the TOP 5 most frequent
breeding sites
E – Association between community’s
perceptions and practices
RESULTS
BACKGROUND
There is still no vaccine nor anti-viral treatment available, hence vector control strategies remain key for
dengue prevention/control. Given the reported high-resistance levels to critical insecticides of the local Ae.
aegypti’s population [2], the promotion of source-reduction activities based on the elimination of larvae
habitats/breeding sites is, thus, mandatory as the unique preventive strategy currently available.
Moreover, by assessing community perceptions regarding source
reduction activities and simultaneously checking the presence of
breeding sites in their households, it aims to compare individuals’
Since Ae. aegypti’s breeding sites are commonly water containers placed inside or around human households, the
community participation is decisive in its elimination.
With the arrival of Aedes aegypti into Madeira
Territory, and mainly after its first dengue outbreak in 2012 [1], the planning of preventing campaigns is a
priority for local and European public health.
perceptions and respective source
bbbbreduction practices.
This study aims to describe the most frequent Ae. aegypti breeding sites in Madeira’s infested
areas, in order to prioritize which water containers must be preferably eliminated.
METHODS CONCLUSIONS
Findings will not only guide the planning of
target-oriented local campaigns, but also will
support a global reflection on dengue
prevention in urbanized regions.
Finally, present entomological survey
enabled the validation of the EP-score as
a tool to assess community perceptions
regarding breeding site elimination.
A total of 1276 households/residents participated in the study. Participants and their houses were randomly out of an universe of 13 433 adult
residents in the infested area, fulfilling the objectives of this study (90% confidence level and 2.5% precision error).