4.1 Review

Dengue vector-control services: how do they work? A systematic literature review and country case studies

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2009.07.027

关键词

Vectors; Dengue; Control; Service analysis; Health-systems research; Integrated vector management

资金

  1. World Health Organization (TDR/WHO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increasing incidence and geographic expansion of dengue suggest limitations of vector-control operations. We undertook an analysis of services with two methods: a systematic literature review; and case studies (stakeholder interviews, questionnaires) in Brazil, Guatemala, The Philippines and Viet Nam. In the systematic literature review there were only a few studies (strict criteria, 9 studies; less strict criteria, a further 16 studies and 3 guidelines). Of the 9 studies, 3 showed little change of control operations over time but did show strategic changes (decentralisation, intersectoral collaboration). Staffing levels, capacity building, management and organisation, funding and community engagement were insufficient. The case studies confirmed most of this information: (1) a lack of personnel (entomologists, social scientists, operational vector-control staff); (2) a lack of technical expertise at decentralised levels of services; (3) insufficient budgets; (4) inadequate geographical coverage; (5) interventions relying mostly on insecticides; (6) difficulties in engaging communities; (7) little capacity building; (8) almost no monitoring and evaluation. Stakeholders' doubts about service effectiveness were widespread, but interventions were assumed to be effective with increased resources. The analysis underlined the need for: operational standards; evidence-based selection/delivery of combinations of interventions; development/application of monitoring and evaluation tools; needs-driven capacity building. (C) 2009 Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据