METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 16 randomly selected Orang Asli villages from eight states in Peninsular Malaysia from April 2012 until February 2013.
RESULTS: A total of 560 Orang Asli were interviewed and 505 completed the survey. Slightly above half of the participants (n = 280, 55.4%) had a total dengue prevention score of 51-100 (of a possible score of 0-100). Multivariate analysis findings showed dengue knowledge, perceived barriers to perform dengue prevention, fogging frequency, and perceived susceptibility to dengue fever as significant factors associated to dengue prevention practices. Participants with a lower dengue knowledge score (score 0-18) were less likely (OR = 0.63, 95%CI = 0.44-0.92 vs. score 19-36, P = 0.015) to practice dengue prevention. Participants with low perceived barriers to prevent dengue (score of 1-5) were more likely (OR = 2.06, 95%CI = 1.21-3.53, vs. score of 6-10, P = 0.008) to practice dengue prevention. Villages that were not fogged (OR = 0.49, 95%CI = 0.24-0.99, P = 0.045) or rarely fogged (OR = 0.40, 95%CI = 0.22-0.75, P = 0.004) had lower dengue prevention practices than villages that were fogged often. Participants with low perceived susceptibility of acquiring dengue (score of 1-5) were less likely (OR = 0.54, 95%CI = 0.33-0.89 vs. score of 6-10, P = 0.018) to practice dengue prevention measures.
CONCLUSION: Findings imply that educational and health programmes should focus on enhancing dengue knowledge and perceived susceptibility of acquiring dengue and reducing perceived barriers to performing dengue prevention practices among the Orang Asli. More outreach on mosquito control campaigns should be carried out especially in villages where mosquito fogging is frequent.
METHODS: A national telephone survey was carried out with 2,512 individuals of the Malaysian public aged 18-60 years old. Individuals were contacted by random digit dialling covering the whole of Malaysia from February 2012 to June 2013.
RESULTS: From 2,512 participants, 6.1 % reported to have heard of the availability of the dengue home test kit and of these, 44.8 % expressed their intention to use the test kit if it was available. Multivariate logistic regressions indicated that participants with primary (OR: 0.65; 95 % CI: 0.43-0.89; p = 0.02, vs. tertiary educational level) and secondary educational levels (OR: 0.73; 95 % CI: 0.57-0.90; p = 0.01, vs. tertiary educational level) were less likely than participants with a tertiary educational level to use a home self-testing dengue kit for dengue if the kit was available. Participants with lower perceived barriers to dengue prevention (level of barriers 0-5) were less likely (OR: 0.67, 95 % CI: 0.53-0.85, p
METHODS: A total of 14 focus group discussions were conducted with 84 Malaysian citizens of different socio-demographic backgrounds between 16(th) December, 2011 and 12(th) May, 2012.
RESULTS: The study revealed that awareness about DF and prevention measures were high. The pathophysiology of dengue especially dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF) and dengue shock syndrome (DSS) were rarely known; as a result, it was seen as deadly by some but was also perceived as easily curable by others without a basis of understanding. Young adults and elderly participants had a low perception of susceptibility to DF. In general, the low perceived susceptibility emerged as two themes, namely a perceived natural ability to withstand infection and a low risk of being in contact with the dengue virus vector, Aedes spp. mosquitoes. The barriers to sustained self-prevention against dengue prevention that emerged in focus groups were: i) lack of self-efficacy, ii) lack of perceived benefit, iii) low perceived susceptibility, and iv) unsure perceived susceptibility. Low perceived benefit of continued dengue prevention practices was a result of lack of concerted action against dengue in their neighborhood. Traditional medical practices and home remedies were widely perceived and experienced as efficacious in treating DF.
CONCLUSION: Behavioural change towards attaining sustainability in dengue preventive practices may be enhanced by fostering comprehensive knowledge of dengue and a change in health beliefs. Wide use of unconventional therapy for DF warrants the need to enlighten the public to limit their reliance on unproven alternative treatments.
METHODS: This study evaluated the cost effectiveness and impact of dengue vaccination in Malaysia from both provider and societal perspectives using a dynamic transmission mathematical model. The model incorporated sensitivity analyses, Malaysia-specific data, evidence from recent phase III studies and pooled efficacy and long-term safety data to refine the estimates from previous published studies. Unit costs were valued in $US, year 2013 values.
RESULTS: Six vaccination programmes employing a three-dose schedule were identified as the most likely programmes to be implemented. In all programmes, vaccination produced positive benefits expressed as reductions in dengue cases, dengue-related deaths, life-years lost, disability-adjusted life-years and dengue treatment costs. Instead of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), we evaluated the cost effectiveness of the programmes by calculating the threshold prices for a highly cost-effective strategy [ICER <1 × gross domestic product (GDP) per capita] and a cost-effective strategy (ICER between 1 and 3 × GDP per capita). We found that vaccination may be cost effective up to a price of $US32.39 for programme 6 (highly cost effective up to $US14.15) and up to a price of $US100.59 for programme 1 (highly cost effective up to $US47.96) from the provider perspective. The cost-effectiveness analysis is sensitive to under-reporting, vaccine protection duration and model time horizon.
CONCLUSION: Routine vaccination for a population aged 13 years with a catch-up cohort aged 14-30 years in targeted hotspot areas appears to be the best-value strategy among those investigated. Dengue vaccination is a potentially good investment if the purchaser can negotiate a price at or below the cost-effective threshold price.
METHODS: A review protocol constructed by a panel of experienced academic reviewers was used to formulate the methodology, research design, search strategy and selection criteria. An extensive literature search was conducted between March-June 2020 in various major electronic biomedical databases including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and ScienceDirect. A systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) were selected as the preferred item reporting method.
RESULTS: Out of a total of 34 peer-reviewed dengue-related KAP studies that were identified, 15 published from 2000 to April 2020 met the inclusion criteria. Based on the meta-analysis, a poor mean score was obtained for each of knowledge (68.89), attitude (49.86) and preventive practice (64.69). Most respondents were equipped with a good knowledge of the major clinical signs of dengue. Worryingly, 95% of respondents showed several negative attitudes towards dengue prevention, claiming that this was not possible and that enacting preventive practices was not their responsibility. Interestingly, television or radio was claimed as the main source of gaining dengue information (range 50-95%). Lastly, only five articles (33.3%) piloted or pretested their questionnaire before surveying, of which three reported Cronbach's alpha coefficient (range 0.70 to 0.90).
CONCLUSION: This review indicates that to combat the growing public health threat of dengue to the Philippines, we need the active participation of resident communities, full engagement of healthcare personnel, promotion of awareness campaigns, and access to safe complementary and alternative medicines. Importantly, the psychometric properties of each questionnaire should be assessed rigorously.