Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2023.05.22.541679

Systematic literature review about educational interventions evaluated through entomological indices or practices to prevent the presence of or eliminate breeding sites of Aedes

Abstract

BackgroundCommunity participation is a critical element in the management of Aedes breeding sites. Many educational interventions have been conducted to encourage prevention and elimination of breeding sites among different community actors, such as government-run programs for vector surveillance aimed at preventing and eliminating breeding sites at the household level within a community. Getting people involved in prevention and elimination of vector breeding sites in their communities requires communication and social mobilization strategies to promote and reinforce those prevention actions that, in turn, should be effective from the entomological standpoint. Methodology/Principal FindingsArticles published in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, were reviewed to assess whether educational interventions targeting Aedes were effective in reducing entomological indicators or in improving practices to prevent the presence of or eliminate breeding sites. The most widely used indicators were the larval indices, and the practices to reduce/eliminate breeding sites. We found that using a community-based approach adapted to the eco-epidemiological and sociocultural scenarios explain the reduction of entomological indicators by educational interventions. Conclusions/SignificanceThose who design or implement educational interventions should strengthen the evaluation of those interventions using qualitative approaches that provide a more complete picture of the social context and barriers/facilitators to implementing vector control. Engaging school children in cross-sectorial collaboration involving the health and education spheres promotes the participation of the community in vector surveillance and reduces the risk of arboviral disease transmission. Author summaryDengue, Zika, and chikungunya are mosquito-borne diseases that represent a major global public health problem. These diseases are transmitted mainly through the bite of the Aedes aegypti vector mosquito and, to a lesser extent, Ae. albopictus. Getting people involved in prevention and elimination of mosquitos in their communities requires communication and social mobilization strategies to promote and reinforce those prevention actions that, in turn, should be effective from the entomological standpoint. The success of vector control programs has been demonstrated to lie in a comprehensive effort involving key community participation and intersectoral alliances. In addition, the participation of schoolchildren to mobilize their families in the prevention of breeding sites and the management of mosquito populations is recommended. In this article, we proposed to conduct a systematic review of scientific publications that evaluate the effects of educational interventions on Aedes through entomological indicators. As a result, we obtained only 26 articles that evaluated the efficacy of educational interventions in reducing vector populations out of 732 articles reviewed. The selected articles were published in both English and Spanish, and to a lesser extent in Portuguese, which highlights the importance of avoiding language bias in systematic reviews. As a conclusion of our work, we can mention that the interventions that incorporated the social context and the barriers/facilitators for the implementation of vector control were the most successful. In addition, we emphasize the importance of involving schoolchildren to promote community participation in vector surveillance.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Soria, C., Almiron, W. R., Stewart-Ibarra, A. M., Crocco, L. B.. 2023-05-23. Systematic literature review about educational interventions evaluated through entomological indices or practices to prevent the presence of or eliminate breeding sites of Aedes. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.22.541679

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Auditing Biomedical Literature with Blinded AI Peer Review: Where Peer Review Works, Where It Fails, and How to Strengthen It

Biomedical publishing has grown more than elevenfold since 1991, outstripping human peer review. Unblinded language models cannot audit this literature objectively because they recognize famous authors and journals from training memory. We built BARS (Blinded AI Review System), an automated referee that strips titles, author names, institutions, journal headers, and dates before grading full-text manuscripts on a 10-point scale covering methods, evidence, biology, and reproducibility. We used BARS to generate 1,874 blind reviews across 1,714 unique papers. BARS passed 100% of verified sound controls, caught 77% to 91% of internally flawed papers, eliminated a +0.35-point prestige boost, and more than doubled human referee consistency. Across 320 recent open-access articles (2020-2025) from eight fields, 54% failed on core scientific rigor (<5.0/10; 41% excluding megajournals). Revision at selective journals improved preprints more than twice as much as revision at commercial megajournals (+0.62 vs. +0.30 points; baseline-adjusted p = 0.033), and BARS recalled 98% of unresolved human referee critiques across 100 open-review papers. Across 915 date-blinded papers from 1991 to 2025, average scores fell from 7.6/10 to 5.8/10 as megajournals and template database studies expanded. Blinded self-audits of 238 papers by two senior authors -- and of this manuscript itself -- caught real statistical, control, and table errors in our own work. At four cents per paper, BARS offers a practical quality check for authors, journals, and readers (https://veg.github.io/BARS/).

scientific communication and education↗

From Problems to Solutions: How Self-Questions Drive Strong Scientific Reasoning

Metacognition, or awareness and control of thinking, is essential for problem solving because it helps solvers select strategies for learning and decide when to enact them (planning), check their understanding in the moment (monitoring), and assess effectiveness of solutions and learning strategies (evaluating). Most studies that examine metacognition do so retrospectively, leaving a critical gap in how metacognition is used in-the-moment for problem solving. In this study, we utilized a think-aloud interview approach to capture and characterize the metacognitive skills that senior undergraduate life science students at three institution types in the United States used spontaneously while solving challenging biology problems. We found that the students (n = 39) displayed a wide variety and quantity of monitoring, some evaluating, and nearly no planning skills while creating a solution backed with high-quality reasoning. Students frequently used self-questions to monitor and evaluate their thinking. We found that self-questioning is a critical skill for generating solutions, but it only moves problem solving forward if the student asks and correctly answers the self-question out loud. This study illustrates how self-questioning and other metacognitive regulation skills provide links to bridge the gap between a student's prior knowledge and specific features of a challenging problem. Based on our student data, we conceptualized a model of metacognitive phases during problem solving with high-quality reasoning. Finally, we present a self-question scaffold to facilitate the proposed phases (planning, monitoring, reasoning, and evaluating) so educators can equip students with metacognitive and scientific reasoning tools for effective problem solving.

scientific communication and education↗

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗