Effectiveness of a Nursing Educational Intervention in Adults to Promote Control Behaviors Against Dengue: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increase in dengue cases can be attributed to social, demographic, environmental changes, or community-driven factors. In this regard, different strategies have been established in health education, using educational interventions as necessary tools for the reduction of the disease with the aim of reinforcing and stimulating the prevention and control of dengue. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a nursing educational intervention for dengue control. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial will be conducted with adults living in rural areas and participating in health promotion and disease prevention programs. We will enroll 116 adults. Adults will be randomized 1:1, with 58 adults assigned to the educational intervention group and 58 to the usual care group. Participants will receive 4 sessions over the course of a month, 1 week apart, and will be followed up for 1 month after the end of the educational intervention. Nursing Outcome Classification labels will be used to measure the outcomes: risk control (1902) and participation in health care decisions (1606). RESULTS: The participants in the intervention group are expected to achieve better dengue control behaviors than those in the usual care group. CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors are fostered by the community, largely caused by artificial reservoirs or unprotected tanks in homes; also, the lack of information hinders the identification of symptomatology and the poor implementation of effective measures, and the development of standardized educational strategies can contribute to efficient and cost-effective control of the disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05321264; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05321264. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/54286.
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 | 0.038 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.011 |
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".