Different Domains of Dengue Research in Malaysia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Questionnaire-Based Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review provided a systematic overview of the questionnaire-related dengue studies conducted in Malaysia and evaluated their reliability and validity used in the questionnaires. An extensive literature search was conducted using various electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and ScienceDirect. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) were selected as the preferred item reporting method. Out of 88 identified dengue-related, 57 published from 2000 to April 2020 met the inclusion criteria and were included. Based on the meta-analysis, a poor mean score was obtained for knowledge (49%), attitude (44%), and preventive practice (55%). The study showed that the level of knowledge on cardinal signs and modes of transmission for dengue virus were highest among health care workers, followed by students (international and local) and lastly community residents. In treatment-seeking behaviours, only half of the respondents (50.8%) would send their child to the nearest health clinics or hospitals when a child became restless or lethargic. The acceptance rate for dengue vaccine, bacteria (Wolbachia), as a vector for dengue control and self-test diagnostic kit for dengue showed considerably high (88.4%, 70%, and 44.8%, respectively). Health belief model (HBM) constructs, such as perceived barriers, perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, self-efficacy, and perceived benefit influence prevention practices. Lastly, only 23 articles (40.3%) had piloted or pretested the questionnaire before surveying, in which three reported Cronbach's alpha coefficient (0.70-0.90). A need for active participation of communities and healthcare personnel, promotion of awareness, and safe complementary medicines, as well as assessment of psychometric properties of questionnaire use in dengue surveys in Malaysia, in order for assessing dengue reliably and valid.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".