Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/061622

Differences in perceived severity of Zika virus infection and dengue fever and its influence on mosquito control practices in Malaysia, a dengue-endemic country

Li Ping Wong·Haridah Alias·Nasrin Aghamohammadi·I-Ching Sam·Sazaly AbuBakar
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BackgroundIt is important to study the concerns over the Zika virus (ZIKV) outbreak among the general public in dengue-endemic countries such as Malaysia, as both diseases are transmitted by the same vector species. Furthermore, investigation of public prevention measures for ZIKV is essential in order to identify the gaps in mosquito control practices. The aims of this study were to explore the differences in 1) the perception of severity towards ZIKV infection and dengue fever, and 2) mosquito control practices before and after the ZIKV outbreak was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).\n\nMethodData were collected between February 2015 and May 2016 using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system on a random sample of 567 people from the general Malaysian population aged above 18 years from randomly selected households.\n\nResultsThe median scale score for perceived severity of ZIKV was 3 (interquartile range [IQR] 1-5) versus 4 (IQR 3-5) for dengue (P<0.001). The majority perceived dengue as being more severe than ZIKV (41.6%). Having friends or acquaintances that had died from dengue was significantly associated with higher perceived severity of ZIKV than dengue (odds ratio [OR] 1.913 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.032-3.547]). The scores for mosquito control practices before and after ZIKV was declared a PHEIC were similar, at 4 (IQR 3-5). Multivariate analysis revealed that participants with a higher score for perception of severity of ZIKV were more likely to report greater mosquito control practices after the declaration of the PHEIC (OR 1.822 [95% CI 1.107-2.998]).\n\nConclusionsThe emerging ZIKV pandemic requires concerted efforts to enhance mosquito control practices among the Malaysian public. Efforts to improve public mosquito control practices should focus on enhancing the perception of the severity of ZIKV.\n\nAuthor summaryInvestigation of the public perception of the severity of the re-emergence of Zika virus (ZIKV) in Malaysia, a dengue-endemic country, is of immense importance. It is also vital to know whether the public has heightened their mosquito prevention practices after the declaration of ZIKV as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). The aim of this study was to explore the differences in 1) the perception of severity towards ZIKV infection and dengue fever, and 2) mosquito control practices before and after the ZIKV outbreak was declared a PHEIC. Findings showed that the public has a lower perception of severity of ZIKV than of dengue. Mosquito prevention practices were the same before and after the declaration of a PHEIC. People with a higher perception of severity of ZIKV reported higher mosquito control practices after the declaration of a PHEIC. The emerging ZIKV pandemic requires concerted efforts to enhance mosquito control practices among the Malaysian public. Efforts to improve public mosquito control practices should focus on enhancing the perception of severity of the ZIKV.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

EpidemiologyPreprint

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Li Ping Wong, Haridah Alias, Nasrin Aghamohammadi, I-Ching Sam, Sazaly AbuBakar. 2016-07-01. Differences in perceived severity of Zika virus infection and dengue fever and its influence on mosquito control practices in Malaysia, a dengue-endemic country. https://doi.org/10.1101/061622

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2016

A risk stratification approach for improved interpretation of diagnostic accuracy statistics

Diagnostic accuracy statistics, including predictive values, risk-differences, Youdens index and Area Under the Curve (AUC), assess the promise of novel biomarkers proposed as diagnostic tests. We reinterpret these statistics in light of risk-stratification (how well a biomarker separates those at higher risk from those at lower risk) to better understand their implications for public-health programs. We introduce an intuitively simple statistic, Mean Risk Stratification (MRS): the average change in risk (pre-test vs. post-test) revealed for tested individuals. High MRS implies better risk separation achieved by testing. MRS demonstrates that conventional predictive values can mislead because they do not account for disease prevalence or test-positivity rates. Little risk-stratification is possible for rare diseases, demonstrating a \"high-bar\" to justify population-based screening. Importantly, we demonstrate that the risk-difference, Youdens index, and AUC measure only multiplicative relative gains in risk-stratification: AUC=0.6 achieves only 20% of maximum risk-stratification (AUC=0.9 achieves 80%). However, large relative gains in risk-stratification might not imply large absolute gains if disease is rare or if the test is rarely positive. We illustrate MRS by our experience comparing the performance of cervical cancer screening tests in China vs. the USA. The test with the worst AUC=0.72 in China (visual inspection with ascetic acid) provides twice the risk-stratification of the test with best AUC=0.83 in the USA (human papillomavirus and Pap cotesting) because China has three times more cervical precancer/cancer. MRS could be routinely calculated to better understand the clinical/public-health implications of standard diagnostic accuracy statistics.

Epidemiology↗
bioRxiv2016

Collider Scope: How selection bias can induce spurious associations

Large-scale cross-sectional and cohort studies have transformed our understanding of the genetic and environmental determinants of health outcomes. However, the representativeness of these samples may be limited - either through selection into studies, or by attrition from studies over time. Here we explore the potential impact of this selection bias on results obtained from these studies, from the perspective that this amounts to conditioning on a collider (i.e., a form of collider bias). While it is acknowledged that selection bias will have a strong effect on representativeness and prevalence estimates, it is often assumed that it should not have a strong impact on estimates of associations. We argue that because selection can induce collider bias (which occurs when two variables independently influence a third variable, and that third variable is conditioned upon), selection can lead to substantially biased estimates of associations. In particular, selection related to phenotypes can bias associations with genetic variants associated with those phenotypes. In simulations, we show that even modest influences on selection into, or attrition from, a study can generate biased and potentially misleading estimates of both phenotypic and genotypic associations. Our results highlight the value of knowing which population your study sample is representative of. If the factors influencing selection and attrition are known, they can be adjusted for. For example, having DNA available on most participants in a birth cohort study offers the possibility of investigating the extent to which polygenic scores predict subsequent participation, which in turn would enable sensitivity analyses of the extent to which bias might distort estimates.\n\nKey MessagesSelection bias (including selective attrition) may limit the representativeness of large-scale cross-sectional and cohort studies.\n\nThis selection bias may induce collider bias (which occurs when two variables independently influence a third variable, and that variable is conditioned upon).\n\nThis may lead to substantially biased estimates of associations, including of genetic associations, even when selection / attrition is relatively modest.

Epidemiology↗
bioRxiv2016

A comparative analysis of Chikungunya and Zika transmission

The recent global dissemination of Chikungunya and Zika has fostered public health concern worldwide. To better understand the drivers of transmission of these two arboviral diseases, we propose a joint analysis of Chikungunya and Zika epidemics in the same territories, taking into account the common epidemiological features of the epidemics: transmitted by the same vector, in the same environments, and observed by the same surveillance systems. We analyse eighteen outbreaks in French Polynesia and the French West Indies using a hierarchical time-dependent SIR model accounting for the effect of virus, location and weather on transmission, and based on a disease specific serial interval. We show that Chikungunya and Zika have similar transmission potential in the same territories (transmissibility ratio between Zika and Chikungunya of 1.04 [95% credible interval: 0.97; 1.13]), but that detection and reporting rates were different (around 19% for Zika and 40% for Chikungunya). Temperature variations between 22{degrees}C and 29{degrees}C did not alter transmission, but increased precipitation showed a dual effect, first reducing transmission after a two-week delay, then increasing it around five weeks later. The present study provides valuable information for risk assessment and introduces a modelling framework for the comparative analysis of arboviral infections that can be extended to other viruses and territories.

Epidemiology↗