MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616909898 · doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4295-7

Informed community mobilization for dengue prevention in households with and without a regular water supply: Secondary analysis from the Camino Verde trial in Nicaragua

2017· article· en· W2616909898 on OpenAlexaff
Alvaro Cárcamo, Jorge Arosteguí, Joséfina Coloma, Eva Harris, Robert J. Ledogar, Neil Andersson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUBS Optimus Foundation
KeywordsWater supplyBiostatisticsMedicineCluster (spacecraft)Dengue feverPsychological interventionCluster randomised controlled trialEnvironmental healthIndex (typography)Dengue virusDemographyPublic healthSocioeconomicsGeographyEconomicsEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Studies in different countries have identified irregular water supply as a risk factor for dengue virus transmission. In 2013, Camino Verde, a cluster-randomised controlled trial in Managua, Nicaragua, and Mexico's Guerrero State, demonstrated impact of evidence-based community mobilisation on recent dengue infection and entomological indexes of infestation by Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. This secondary analysis of data from the trial impact survey asks: (1) what is the importance of regular water supply in neighbourhoods with and without the trial intervention and (2) can community interventions like Camino Verde reasonably exclude households with adequate water supply? METHODS: Entomological data collected in the dry season of 2013 in intervention and control communities allow contrasts between households with regular and irregular water supplies. Indicators of entomological risk included the House Index and pupa positive household index. Generalised linear mixed models with cluster as a random effect compared households with and without regular water, and households in intervention and control communities. RESULTS: For the House Index, regular water supply was associated with a protection in both intervention households (OR 0.7, 95%CI 0.6-0.9) and control households (OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.5-0.8). For the pupa positive household index, we found a similar protection from regular water supply in intervention households (OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.4-0.8) and control households (OR 0.7, 95%CI 0.5-0.9). The Camino Verde intervention had a similar impact on House Index in households with regular water supply (OR 0.7, 95%CI 0.5-1.0) and irregular water supply (OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.4-0.8); for the pupa positive household index, the effect of the intervention was very similar in households with regular (OR0.5, 95%CI 0.3-0.8) and irregular (OR 0.5, 95%CI 0.3-0.9) water supply. CONCLUSION: While Aedes aegypti control efforts based on informed community mobilisation had a strong impact on households without a regular water supply, this intervention also impacted entomological indices in households with a regular water supply. These households should not be excluded from community mobilisation efforts to reduce the Aedes aegypti vector. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN27581154 .

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207