Knowledge and practice regarding dengue and chikungunya: a cross‐sectional study among Healthcare workers and community in Northern Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate knowledge and prevention practices regarding dengue and chikungunya amongst community members, as well as knowledge, treatment and diagnostic practices among healthcare workers. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional survey with 125 community members and 125 healthcare workers from 13 health facilities in six villages in the Hai district of Tanzania. A knowledge score was generated based on participant responses to a structured questionnaire, with a score of 40 or higher (of 80 and 50 total scores for community members and healthcare workers, respectively) indicating good knowledge. We conducted qualitative survey (n = 40) to further assess knowledge and practice regarding dengue and chikungunya fever. RESULTS: = 4.25, P = 0.03). Only 2.4% (n = 3) of all participants had a good knowledge score for chikungunya. In the qualitative study, community members expressed uncertainty about dengue and chikungunya. Some healthcare workers thought that they were new diseases. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient knowledge regarding dengue and chikungunya fever among community members and healthcare workers. Health promotion activities on these diseases based on Ecological Health Mode components to increase knowledge and improve preventive practices should be developed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".