Content area
Full text
About the Authors:
Dennis Pérez
Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing - original draft
* E-mail: [email protected]
Affiliation: Department of Epidemiology, Institute of Tropical Medicine Pedro Kourí, Havana, Cuba
ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2993-933X
Patrick Van der Stuyft
Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing - review & editing
Affiliations Department of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium, Department of Public Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
María Eugenia Toledo
Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Project administration, Resources, Writing - review & editing
Affiliation: Department of Epidemiology, Institute of Tropical Medicine Pedro Kourí, Havana, Cuba
Enrique Ceballos
Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Writing - review & editing
Affiliation: Department of Vector Control, Polyclinic Armando García, Santiago de Cuba, Cuba
Francisco Fabré
Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Writing - review & editing
Affiliation: Department of Vector Control, Provincial Surveillance and Vector Control Unit, Santiago de Cuba, Cuba
Pierre Lefèvre
Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing - original draft
Affiliation: Department of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, BelgiumAbstract
Background
Within the context of a field trial conducted by the Cuban vector control program (AaCP), we assessed acceptability of insecticide-treated curtains (ITCs) and residual insecticide treatment (RIT) with deltamethrin by the community. We also assessed the potential influence of interviewees’ risk perceptions for getting dengue and disease severity.
Methodology/principal findings
We embedded a qualitative study using in-depth interviews in a cluster randomized trial (CRT) testing the effectiveness of ITCs and RIT in Santiago de Cuba. In-depth interviews (N = 38) were conducted four and twelve months after deployment of the tools with people who accepted the tools, who stopped using them and who did not accept the tools. Data analysis was deductive. Main reasons for accepting ITCs at the start of the trial were perceived efficacy and not being harmful to health. Constraints linked to manufacturer instructions were the main reason for not using ITCs. People stopped using the ITCs due to perceived allergy, toxicity and low efficacy. Few heads of households refused RIT despite the noting reasons for rejection, such as allergy, health hazard and toxicity. Positive opinions of the vector control program influenced acceptability of both tools. However, frequent insecticide fogging as part of routine AaCP vector control actions diminished perceived...