4.5 Article

Popular beliefs about the infectivity of water among school children in two hyperendemic schistosomiasis areas of Brazil

期刊

ACTA TROPICA
卷 108, 期 2-3, 页码 202-208

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2008.05.009

关键词

Health education; Common knowledge; Symbolism; Scientific knowledge; Schistosomiasis; Brazil

资金

  1. Fogarty International Center [1D43TW006580]
  2. Conselho de Desenvolvimento Tecnologico e Cientifico/CNPQ
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais/FAPEMIG
  4. National Institutes of Health [A145451]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article examines changing common knowledge of elementary school children to scientific knowledge related to the relationship between water characteristics and the transmission of schistosomiasis through health education. A review of the literature and two case studies from rural elementary schools in Brazil show how the prevailing concept of dirty and polluted water, which has operated as an epistemological obstacle for acquiring scientific knowledge, may be related to symbolic thought and cultural parameters. Through an educational intervention not commonly applied to health programs involving elementary school students in two schistosomiasis-endemic rural communities in Brazil this paper describes the difficulties researchers encountered in changing the prevailing perception that very dirty and polluted water provides optimal conditions for schistosome transmission, to the scientifically accepted view that transmission occurs most often in visually clean, although fecally contaminated water. This conceptual difficulty may be largely explained in terms of the symbolism involved in clean and dirty water and the life-giving quality of water. Based on our results, we recommend that knowledge about water-related beliefs and concepts among school children should be considered in school-based health education programs in areas of endemic schistosomiasis and possibly other intestinal infections. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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