首页> 外文期刊>Annals of tropical medicine and parasitology >Personal-protection measures against mosquitoes: a study of practices and costs in a district, in the Indian state of Orissa, where malaria and lymphatic filariasis are co-endemic.
【24h】

Personal-protection measures against mosquitoes: a study of practices and costs in a district, in the Indian state of Orissa, where malaria and lymphatic filariasis are co-endemic.

机译:针对蚊子的个人保护措施:在印度奥里萨邦一个地区,疟疾和淋巴丝虫病是共同流行地区的做法和成本研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In a study undertaken among rural and urban communities in a district of Orissa, India, the personal-protection measures used against mosquitoes, and the household costs of these measures, were investigated. Most people living in the study communities perceived mosquitoes as a problem, both as a biting nuisance and as vectors of human disease. Almost all (99%) of the urban households investigated and most (84%) of the rural each reported the use of at least one measure against mosquitoes. Most of the study households (92% of the urban and 64% of the rural) used a 'modern' chemical method (coils, vaporizing mats, liquid vaporizers or sprays), with mosquito coils used more frequently than any other personal-protection measure. Untreated bednets were also used by most of the households investigated (76% of the urban and 58% of the rural) and some households (about 10% of the urban and 8% of the rural) still used the more traditional method of burning dried dung or vegetation indoors, specifically to create smoke to drive away mosquitoes. Setting, house type, as indicated by the material used as roofing, and number of people in the household were each a significant predictor of the use of personal protection, with households in an urban setting, large households, and households occupying a concrete-roofed building relatively more likely to use some form of personal protection. Although 'modern', chemical-based methods were frequently employed, about one in every two interviewees (57% of the urban and 43% of the rural) considered the use of such methods to be harmful to their health. The mean monthly expenditures on personal-protection measures were 101 Indian rupees (U.S.Dollars 2.20)/urban household and 72 Indian rupees (U.S.Dollars 1.60)/rural household. Setting, family income, family size and number of sleeping rooms in the house each affected such expenditure significantly. As a proportion of household income, expenditure on controlling mosquitoes was surprisingly high.
机译:在印度奥里萨邦的一个农村和城市社区中进行的一项研究中,调查了针对蚊子的个人保护措施以及这些措施的家庭成本。生活在研究社区中的大多数人都认为蚊子是一个问题,既令人讨厌,又是人类疾病的传播媒介。几乎所有(99%)接受调查的城市家庭和大多数(84%)农村家庭均报告了至少使用一种措施来灭蚊。大多数研究家庭(92%的城市家庭和64%的农村家庭)使用了“现代”化学方法(线圈,气垫,液体蒸发器或喷雾剂),蚊香的使用频率比其他任何个人防护措施都要高。大多数接受调查的家庭(城市的76%和农村的58%)也使用未经处理的蚊帐,一些家庭(城市的10%和农村的8%)仍使用较传统的干烧方法室内的粪便或植物,特别是产生烟雾以驱赶蚊子。设置,房屋类型(如用作屋顶材料的材料所示)以及家庭中的人数都是使用个人保护的重要指标,城市地区的家庭,大型家庭和使用混凝土屋顶的家庭建立相对更可能使用某种形式的人身保护的人。尽管经常使用基于化学方法的“现代”方法,但大约每两个受访者中有一个(城市中的57%,农村中的43%)认为使用此类方法对其健康有害。个人保护措施的平均每月支出为101印度卢比(美元2.20)/城市家庭和72印度卢比(美元1.60)/农村家庭。房屋的环境,家庭收入,家庭规模和卧室数量均显着影响了此类支出。作为家庭收入的一部分,用于控制蚊子的支出惊人地高。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号