↓ Skip to main content

Experiences with insecticide-treated curtains: a qualitative study in Iquitos, Peru

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Experiences with insecticide-treated curtains: a qualitative study in Iquitos, Peru
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3191-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valerie A. Paz-Soldan, Karin M. Bauer, Audrey Lenhart, Jhonny J. Cordova Lopez, John P. Elder, Thomas W. Scott, Philip J. McCall, Tadeusz J. Kochel, Amy C. Morrison

Abstract

Dengue is an arthropod-borne viral disease responsible for approximately 400 million infections annually; the only available method of prevention is vector control. It has been previously demonstrated that insecticide treated curtains (ITCs) can lower dengue vector infestations in and around houses. As part of a larger trial examining whether ITCs could reduce dengue transmission in Iquitos, Peru, the objective of this study was to characterize the participants' experience with the ITCs using qualitative methods. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) surveys (at baseline, and 9 and 27 months post-ITC distribution, with n = 593, 595 and 511, respectively), focus group discussions (at 6 and 12 months post-ITC distribution, with n = 18 and 33, respectively), and 11 one-on-one interviews (at 12 months post-distribution) were conducted with 605 participants who received ITCs as part of a cluster-randomized trial. Focus groups at 6 months post-ITC distribution revealed that individuals had observed their ITCs to function for approximately 3 months, after which they reported the ITCs were no longer working. Follow up revealed that the ITCs required re-treatment with insecticide at approximately 1 year post-distribution. Over half (55.3 %, n = 329) of participants at 9 months post-ITC distribution and over a third (34.8 %, n = 177) at 27 months post-ITC distribution reported perceiving a decrease in the number of mosquitoes in their home. The percentage of participants who would recommend ITCs to their family or friends in the future remained high throughout the study (94.3 %, n = 561 at 9 months and 94.6 %, n = 488 at 27 months post-distribution). When asked why, participants reported that ITCs were effective at reducing mosquitoes (81.6 and 37.8 %, at 9 and 27 months respectively), that they prevent dengue (5.7 and 51.2 %, at 9 and 27 months), that they are "beautiful" (5.9 and 3.1 %), as well as other reasons (6.9 and 2.5 %). ITCs have substantial potential for long term dengue vector control because they are liked by users, both for their perceived effectiveness and for aesthetic reasons, and because they require little proactive behavioral effort on the part of the users. Our results highlight the importance of gathering process (as opposed to outcome) data during vector control studies, without which researchers would not have become aware that the ITCs had lost effectiveness early in the trial.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 20%
Researcher 14 19%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 4 5%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 18 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 17 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,985,702
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,097
of 14,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,283
of 356,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#240
of 349 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,922 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 356,439 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 349 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.