Dengue-free community as an approach for understanding the value and challenges of inter-agencies partnerships in an intervention program
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20172139Keywords:
Dengue, Integrated vector management, Community participation, Aedes, Intervention, Dengue free communityAbstract
Background: One of the key requirements for accomplishing a mutual goal is the formation of partnerships. ‘Partnership’ is an ill-defined concept, subject to multiple interpretations and frequently used interchangeably with alliance, coalition, network and collaboration among other terms. World Health Organisation had emphasized dengue prevention and control as a top priority, thus an inter agencies strategy and intervention study was launched to document the effectiveness of a local-level inter agencies approach and partnerships.
Methods: The Free-Dengue Community approach, which involved stakeholder partnerships between parties such as the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Science, Technology, Local Municipalities, Health District Offices and National University of Malaysia, was developed as an inter-agencies plan for dengue prevention, of which the core objective was to design and implement activities for communication and social mobilization. In the control area, routine dengue control activities continued without additional input. Entomological indices were compared within and between the areas before and after the 12 week intervention period.
Results: The approach consolidated the inter-agencies partnerships whereby the dengue cases in the localities had dropped and via this study, the module of Dengue-Free Community was mapped and documented. The result also highlighted the contributions made by each of the partner in bringing down the dengue cases in the selected localities. Furthermore, the number of ovitrap index also decreasing proving that the approach is effective. The community kit and home-kit provided to the community also helped in reducing the number of Aedes eggs in the intervention program.
Conclusions: The partnership using the Dengue-Free Community approach achieved its aim of increasing the level of cooperation between the authorities to support social mobilization, and results shed light on how to tackle the challenges of inter-agency partnerships and the required approach for a better understanding of the levels at which individuals operate within such partnerships.
Metrics
References
World Health Organization. Global Strategic Framework for Integrated Vector Management. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2004.
Arunachalam N, Tyagi BK, Samuel M, Krishnamoorthi R, Manavalan R, Tewari SC, et al. Community-based control of Aedes aegypti by adoption of eco-health methods in Chennai City, India. Pathog Glob Health. 2012;106(8):488-96.
Espino F, Koops V and Manderson L. Community participation and tropical disease control in resource-poor settings. 2004. WHO; 2004:52.
Gubler DJ, Clark GG. Community-based integrated control of Aedes aegypti: a brief overview of current programmes. Am J Tropical Med Hygiene. 1994;50(6):50-60.
Winch PJ, Kendall C, Gubler DJ. Effectiveness of community participation in vector-borne disease control. Health Policy and Planning. 1992;7(4):342-51.
Heintze C, Velasco GM, Kroeger A. What do community-based dengue control programmes achieve? A systematic review of published evaluations. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2007;101:317-25.
Whiteford L. Local identity, globalization and health in Cuba and the Dominican Republic. In: Whiteford L and Manderson L, editos. Global health policy, local realities: the fallacy of the level playing field. Boulder, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000: 57-101.
Tapia-Conyer R, Méndez-Galván J, Burciaga-Zúñiga P. Community participation in the prevention and control of dengue: the patio limpio strategy in Mexico. Paediatr Int Child Health. 2012;32(Suppl 1):10-3.
Parks W, Lloyd L. Planning Social Mobilization and Communication for Dengue Fever Prevention and Control. A Step-by-Step Guide. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2004.
Packierisamy PR, Ng CW, Dahlui M, Inbaraj J, Balan VK, Halasa YA, et al. Cost of Dengue Vector Control Activities in Malaysia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;93(5):1020–7.
Packierisamy PR, Ng CW, Dahlui M, Venugopalan B, Halasa YA, Shepard DS. The Cost of Dengue Vector Control Activities in Malaysia by Different Service Providers. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2015;27(8 Suppl):73S-8S.
Baly A, Toledo ME, Boelaert M, Reyes A, Vanlerberghe V, Ceballos E, et al. Cost effectiveness of Aedes aegypti control programmes: participatory versus vertical. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2007;101(6):578-86.
Butterfoss FD. Process evaluation for community participation. Annual Reviews of Public Health. 2006;27:323–40.
Arunachalam N, Tana S, Espino F, Kittayapong P, Abeyewickreme W, Wai KT, et al. Eco-bio-social determinants of dengue vector breeding: a multicountry study in urban and periurban Asia. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88:173–84.
Kittayapong P, Chansang U, Chansang C, Bhumiratana A. Community participation and appropriate technologies for dengue vector control at transmission foci in Thailand. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2006;22:538–46.
Sommerfeld J, Kroeger A. Eco-bio-social research on dengue in Asia: a multicountry study on ecosystem and community-based approaches for the control of dengue vectors in urban and peri-urban Asia. Pathogens and Global Health 2012;106(8); 428-35.
Khun S, Manderson L. Community and school-based health education for dengue control in rural Cambodia: a process evaluation. Plos Neglected Tropical Disease. 2007;1(3):1-10.
Toledo ME, Vanlerberghe V, Perez D, Lefevre P, Ceballos E, Bandera D, et al. Achieving sustainability of community based dengue control in Santiag de Cuba. Social Sci Med. 2007;64(4):976-88.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
