Global systematic review and meta-analysis of knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards dengue fever among the general population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the global level of knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards dengue fever among the general population. Methods: To complete this systematic review and meta-analysis, a thorough search for pertinent English-language literature was undertaken during the study's extension until October 2023. The search used Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Direct, Web of Science, EMBASE, Springer, and ProQuest. A quality assessment checklist developed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for the cross-sectional study was used to evaluate the risk of bias in the included papers. Inverse variance and Cochran Q statistics were employed in the STATA software version 14 to assess study heterogeneity. When there was heterogeneity, the Dersimonian and Liard random-effects models were used. Results: 59 Studies totaling 87353 participants were included in this meta-analysis. These investigations included 86278 participants in 55 studies on knowledge, 20196 in 33 studies on attitudes, and 74881 in 29 studies on practices. The pooled estimates for sufficient knowledge, positive attitudes, and dengue fever preventive behaviors among the general population were determined as 40.1% (95% CI 33.8%-46.5%), 46.8% (95% CI 35.8%-58.9%), and 38.3% (95% CI 28.4%-48.2%), respectively. Europe exhibits the highest knowledge level at 63.5%, and Africa shows the lowest at 20.3%. Positive attitudes are most prevalent in the Eastern Mediterranean (54.1%) and Southeast Asia (53.6%), contrasting sharply with the Americas, where attitudes are notably lower at 9.05%. Regarding preventive behaviors, the Americas demonstrate a prevalence of 12.1%, Southeast Asia at 28.1%, Western Pacific at 49.6%, Eastern Mediterranean at 44.8%, and Africa at 47.4%. Conclusions: Regional disparities about the knowledge, attitude and preventive bahaviors are evident with Europe exhibiting the highest knowledge level while Africa has the lowest. These findings emphasize the importance of targeted public health interventions tailored to regional contexts, highlighting the need for region-specific strategies to enhance dengue-related knowledge and encourage positive attitudes and preventive behaviors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".