IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0261412.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Different domains of dengue research in the Philippines: A systematic review and meta-analysis of questionnaire-based studies

Author

Listed:
  • Rhanye Mac Guad
  • Rogie Royce Carandang
  • Judilynn N Solidum
  • Andrew W. Taylor-Robinson
  • Yuan Seng Wu
  • Yin Nwe Aung
  • Wah Yun Low
  • Maw Shin Sim
  • Shamala Devi Sekaran
  • Nornazirah Azizan

Abstract

Background: Dengue is the most rapidly spreading mosquito-borne viral disease of humans worldwide, including southeast Asia region. This review provides a comprehensive overview of questionnaire-related dengue studies conducted in the Philippines and evaluates their reliability and validity in these surveys. 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Rhanye Mac Guad & Rogie Royce Carandang & Judilynn N Solidum & Andrew W. Taylor-Robinson & Yuan Seng Wu & Yin Nwe Aung & Wah Yun Low & Maw Shin Sim & Shamala Devi Sekaran & Nornazirah Azizan, 2021. "Different domains of dengue research in the Philippines: A systematic review and meta-analysis of questionnaire-based studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-23, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0261412
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261412
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261412
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261412&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0261412?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rhanye Mac Guad & Yuan Seng Wu & Yin Nwe Aung & Shamala Devi Sekaran & André Barretto Bruno Wilke & Wah Yun Low & Maw Shin Sim & Rogie Royce Carandang & Mohammad Saffree Jeffree & Hamed Taherdoost & C, 2021. "Different Domains of Dengue Research in Malaysia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Questionnaire-Based Studies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-30, April.
    2. Taranum Ruba Siddiqui & Saima Ghazal & Safia Bibi & Waquaruddin Ahmed & Shaimuna Fareeha Sajjad, 2016. "Use of the Health Belief Model for the Assessment of Public Knowledge and Household Preventive Practices in Karachi, Pakistan, a Dengue-Endemic City," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carlyn Harris & Blas Armién, 2020. "Sociocultural determinants of adoption of preventive practices for hantavirus: A knowledge, attitudes, and practices survey in Tonosí, Panama," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Yu-Shan Tai & Hao-Jan Yang, 2022. "Factors That Prevent Mosquito-Borne Diseases among Migrant Workers in Taiwan: Application of the Health Belief Model in a Church-Based Health Promotion Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-11, January.
    3. Dimitra Sifaki-Pistolla & Enkeleint A. Mechili & Evangelos Melidoniotis & Alexandros Argyriadis & Evridiki Patelarou & Vasiliki-Eirini Chatzea, 2022. "Participatory Action Research for Tackling Distress and Burnout in Young Medical Researchers: Normative Beliefs before and during the Greek Financial Crisis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-12, August.
    4. Adivânia Cardoso da Silva & Paulo Sérgio Scalize, 2023. "Environmental Variables Related to Aedes aegypti Breeding Spots and the Occurrence of Arbovirus Diseases," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-21, May.
    5. Rhanye Mac Guad & Yuan Seng Wu & Yin Nwe Aung & Shamala Devi Sekaran & André Barretto Bruno Wilke & Wah Yun Low & Maw Shin Sim & Rogie Royce Carandang & Mohammad Saffree Jeffree & Hamed Taherdoost & C, 2021. "Different Domains of Dengue Research in Malaysia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Questionnaire-Based Studies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-30, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0261412. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.