Assessing the Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) of Dengue Fever in Thailand: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Julia Crowley, Bowen Liu, Hanan Jan
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.04.24306876

Abstract

Dengue fever cases are on the rise in Thailand with increases in flooding events. Studies pertaining to public knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of dengue prevention have frequently been used to better understand the publics’ needs towards dengue. This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of past dengue KAP studies in Thailand. Criteria were developed to determine eligibility, and reviewers independently applied these criteria to identify the 9 eligible studies for the systematic review and the 3 eligible studies for the meta-analysis. Results suggest that the majority of the studies included in the systematic review reported overall low knowledge levels towards dengue prevention in Thailand. This finding was affirmed by the meta-analysis, which concluded that the overall estimate of the proportion of participants with high knowledge of dengue prevention is only 35% (95% CI: 14%-59%). Most of the studies included in the systematic review reported positive attitudes towards dengue prevention, and this finding was also affirmed by the meta-analysis, which concluded that the pooled estimate of the proportion of positive attitudes towards dengue prevention is 61% (95% CI: 43%-77%). Lastly, the majority of studies in the systematic review reported overall poor practices towards dengue prevention. Similarly, the meta-analysis found that the pooled estimate of the proportion of good practices for preventing dengue infection is only 25% (95% CI: 22%-27%).

Introduction

Thailand’s tropical location and topography make the Southeast Asian nation vulnerable to flood hazards [1]. Past research has examined the relationship between climate change and increases in the frequency and intensity of flooding in Thailand [2–7]. Moreover, additional research has examined the impacts of climate change-induced flood increases on several sectors within Thailand, including but not limited to agriculture [5, 8–10], housing [10–12], and public health [13].

Dengue fever is recognized as a significant public health problem that is widespread throughout Thailand [14] and exacerbated by the flooding impacts of climate change [15]. Dengue is an infectious disease that is caused by any of the four serotypes of dengue virus [16]. The virus is transmitted to humans through female Aedes mosquitoes and is mainly present in tropical and subtropical environments. Symptoms range from a mild fever to severe dengue hemorrhagic fever and shock syndrome [16].

Increases in dengue cases following flood events in tropical and subtropical environments were detected in previous research [17, 18]. The accumulation of stagnant water from flooding in urban areas is a major breeding ground for Aedes mosquitoes and the subsequent transmission of dengue [19]. Occurrences of dengue in Thailand have increased continuously over the last 60 years [20] with approximately 21,689 reported cases in 2022 [21]. The virus is now the leading cause of hospitalizations and fatalities among children, and precipitation was found to be the most influential weather variable for predicting cases of dengue in Thailand [20]. Furthermore, the high incidents of dengue place substantial economic and societal burdens on Thailand [14]. The average cost per dengue occurrence is estimated to be between 41 USDs and 261 USDs with a total annual cost estimated at 440.3 million USDs [14].

The treatment of dengue consists mainly of alleviating symptoms and avoiding complications that could potentially lead to death [22]. The development of a dengue vaccine has proven to be challenging due to the presence of four antigenically distinct dengue virus serotypes [16]. Each of these serotypes is capable of a cross-reactive and disease-enhancing antibody response against the other three serotypes. A vaccine used in dengue prevention is now available in some countries, but its reported efficacy is low in dengue naïve individuals [16]. In the United States, the dengue vaccine is only approved for use in children aged 9-16 with a previously confirmed dengue infection who are living in areas with high prevalences of the virus [23].

Such challenges in the treatment and vaccination development of dengue have called for the establishment of protocols to prevent the spread of the Aedes mosquito. The Ross-Macdonald model argues that effective interventions for decreasing the transmission of dengue include reducing the adult mosquito population density and the mosquito contact with humans [22]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [23] advise individuals to use insect repellent, wear loose-fitting, long-sleeved shirts and pants, and take steps to control mosquitoes inside and outside of the home. Examples of mechanisms that control mosquitoes include the use of screens on windows and doors and the regular emptying of water in items like tires and flowerpots where water can accumulate [23]. Since these measures call for specific actions at the individual and community level, several studies cite the importance of community engagement and public education in reducing the spread of dengue [24–26].

Individual vulnerability to acquiring dengue is often measured by knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) surveys. Such surveys aim to measure what is known (knowledge), believed (attitude), and done (practiced) pertaining to the topic of interest [27]. KAP surveys originated in the 1950s and have become widely accepted as a research tool for health-related behaviors and health-seeking practices [27]. Given the health risks of acquiring dengue, sufficient knowledge, positive attitudes, and proper practices (KAP) are crucial for the prevention and control of the virus [28]. Furthermore, high levels of KAP can empower individuals to take part in the necessary disease control and prevention programs [29].

A myriad of studies have used KAP surveys to measure the knowledge, attitudes, and practices pertaining to dengue in different areas of the world. Many of these studies took place in Southeast Asia where the prevalence is high [30]. Past research has also provided systematic reviews and meta-analyses for the results of dengue KAP studies in individual countries. Countries in the Southeast Asia region include Malaysia [31, 32] and the Philippines [33]. However, there is a dearth of past research studies that provides systematic reviews and meta-analyses of KAP studies in Thailand. This research is crucial given the increasing cases of dengue [20] and the susceptibility of the country to increased flooding due to the effects of climate change [2–7]. This research therefore aims to examine the existing knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of dengue in Thailand by providing a systematic review and meta-analysis of past studies. The following section will describe the methods that were employed to answer the research question.

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [34] was used to guide this systematic review and meta-analysis. The following subsections explain the eligibility criteria, literature review, study selection, data abstraction, study appraisal, and statistical analyses.

Eligibility Criteria

Studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis if they were observational, conducted in Thailand, and reported outcomes that included standardized scores for knowledge, attitudes, and practices in addition to specifying the proportion of participants with good knowledge, attitudes, and practices pertaining to dengue fever. Studies that did not report the results of an observational study, such as comments, case reports, reviews, and letters to the editor were excluded.

Literature Search

Two investigators conducted separate comprehensive searches of the PubMed and MEDLINE online databases for studies published between January of 1950 and October of 2023 without language restrictions. The following terms and variants were utilized in the search strategy to identify relevant studies: “Thailand”, “KAP”, “Knowledge”, “Attitude”, “Practice”, “Dengue”, “Breakbone Fever”, “Dengue Fever.” The two investigators also independently examined the references of eligible original studies and relevant meta-analysis articles.

Study Selection

At the initial study selection stage, two investigators independently screened the titles and the abstracts of the articles identified with the search strategy. The studies that both reviewers considered to be irrelevant to this systematic review and meta-analysis were excluded, while the remaining studies were prepared for further assessment in the next stage. During the second stage of study selection, two investigators independently examined the full texts of articles for eligibility in the meta-analysis and systematic review. Cohen’s Kappa statistic was used to evaluate the level of agreement between the two investigators at both stages of study selection. The disagreements were resolved by two additional investigators. The details of the study selection are presented in the PRISMA flow diagram in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

PRISMA Flow Chart

Data Abstraction

The following study characteristics were abstracted: author(s), titles, year of publication, sample size, sampling methods, standardized knowledge scores, standardized attitude scores, standard practice scores, the proportion of study participants with good knowledge, the proportion of study participants with good attitudes, and the proportion of study participants with good practices. With a standardized data extraction form, two reviewers independently completed data abstraction and entry. The inconsistencies in data abstraction for the two reviewers were assessed by utilizing Cohen’s Kappa. Disagreements in data abstractions were resolved by two additional reviewers.

Study Appraisal

To critically appraise the studies and evaluate the risk of bias, the studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria were examined by two independent reviewers based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Checklist [35]. The disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Statistical Analyses

We conducted meta-analyses to quantitatively summarize the findings from different studies. The DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used to pool the effect sizes of included studies [36]. We utilized this model since it accounts for the between-study heterogeneity due to different study populations. For the studies that reported standardized scores of knowledge, attitude, and practice, the pooled mean standardized scores and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented. For the studies that reported the proportions of study participants with good knowledge, attitudes, and practices, the pooled proportions and the corresponding 95% CIs are presented. Subgroup analyses were performed with different criteria such as study types and sampling methods. To assess the heterogeneity in the meta-analyses, the Cochran’s Q test was utilized. In addition, the between-study heterogeneity was measured using Higgins I2 statistic [37]. To be consistent with previous literature, we regard I2 < 40% as minimal heterogeneity, 40 – 60% as moderate heterogeneity, 60 – 75% as substantial heterogeneity, and > 75% as considerable heterogeneity [38, 39].

To account for potential publication bias, we conducted Begg’s rank correlation test to help assess the presence of publication bias in the funnel plots [40]. All data analyses were conducted using the R statistical software package (Version 4.3.1, Core Team, Vienna, Austria), and a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The subsequent results section presents the results of the systematic review and meta-analysis.

Results

This section presents the results of the study selection criteria in the PRISMA flow chart of Figure 1. Subsequent subsections describe the outcomes of the systematic review and meta-analysis for the three individual components of knowledge, attitudes, and practices. Further information on the systematic review and meta-analysis is displayed in Figures 2-4 and Tables 1-2.

View this table:
Table 1: Study Characteristics.
View this table:
Table 2: Risk of Bias Assessment with the CASP Checklist.

Knowledge

A total of 9 past studies on KAP and dengue met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Six of the 9 included studies observed that participants had overall low knowledge pertaining to dengue [41–46] while the remaining 3 studies reported overall high participant dengue-related knowledge [47–49]. Studies commonly used awareness of the Aedes mosquito species as a vector for transmitting dengue to describe participants’ knowledge [43, 47–49]. Other frequently cited indictors of dengue-related knowledge include dengue symptom awareness [43, 47–49] and recognition of the time of day and season when dengue infection is most prevalent [43, 47, 48].

More specifically, studies examined associations between dengue-related knowledge and sociodemographic factors. Dengue-related knowledge was associated with participants’ socioeconomic status and 51.4% of urban participants exhibited high knowledge compared to 36.7% of their rural counterparts [44]. Other studies looked at associations between participants’ past experiences and dengue-related knowledge. The overall knowledge of dengue caretakers, caretakers of non-dengue cases, and caretakers of healthy students was almost the same between the 3 groups [41]. Dengue-related knowledge was also associated with previous dengue experiences [44], but not with the use of insecticide-treated curtains [46]. Table 1 provides details on the 9 studies and Table 2 presents the risk of bias assessment.

In total, 3 of the 9 studies reported the proportions of study participants with high knowledge of dengue [43–45]. The definition of high knowledge of dengue was consistent among the 3 studies: if a participant received a KAP knowledge score over 80%, then the participant is categorized into the group with high knowledge of dengue.

Figure 2 shows the studies that reported the proportions of participants with high knowledge of dengue. One of the studies reported the proportions separately for urban and rural areas [44]. With a random-effect meta-analysis model, the overall estimate of the proportion of participants with high knowledge of dengue is 35% (95% CI: 14%-59%). A Higgins I2 of 99% indicates that significant heterogeneity was observed. Publication bias was examined using Begg’s rank correlation test. The results from rank correlation tests suggested that publication bias was not significant for the proportions of knowledge (p = 0.17).

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Meta-analysis of the proportion of people with good dengue knowledge in Thailand.

Attitudes

Seven of the 9 studies included in the systematic review concluded that the majority of participants demonstrated positive attitudes towards the prevention of dengue infection through accurate perceptions of the risk of acquiring the disease [41, 42, 44–48]. The remaining 2 studies displayed negative attitudes towards dengue infection prevention through inaccurate perceptions of disease acquisition and the perceived effectiveness of preventative actions [43, 49]. Several of the studies measured attitudes by the perceived susceptibility of acquiring dengue [41–43, 47–49], the severity of the disease [41, 43, 47, 48], a desire to acquire stronger levels of dengue awareness [44, 45], and the validity of strategies to prevent infection [43–49].

Like with the knowledge component of KAP, studies also examined associations between dengue-related attitudes and sociodemographic factors. Dengue-related attitudes were associated with education levels, but the proportions of positive attitudes were almost the same between participants from rural areas (64.4%) and participants from urban areas (69.8%) [44]. Associations between participants’ past dengue experiences and dengue-related attitudes were also tested. Caretakers of dengue patients had significantly more incorrect perceptions of signs and symptoms of the disease compared to caretakers of non-dengue cases and caretakers of healthy students [41]. Finally, there was an association between the continued use of insecticide-treated curtains and their perceived effectiveness [46].

Of the 9 studies included in the systematic review, 3 reported the proportions of study participants with positive attitudes towards dengue prevention [43–45]. Three studies used the same definition for positive attitudes towards dengue prevention: If a participant received a KAP attitude score over 80%, then the participant is categorized into the group with positive attitudes towards dengue prevention.

Figure 3 demonstrates the studies that reported the proportions of participants with positive attitudes towards dengue prevention. One study reported the proportions separately for urban and rural areas [44]. The pooled estimate of the proportion of positive attitudes towards dengue prevention is 61% (95% CI: 43%-77%). A Higgin’s I2 of 97% suggested that significant heterogeneity was observed. Begg’s rank correlation test suggested that publication bias was not significant for the proportions of attitude towards dengue prevention (p = 0.17).

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Meta-analysis of the proportion of people with good dengue attitudes in Thailand.

Practice

Of the 9 studies included in the systematic review, only 2 of the studies displayed overall good practices for preventing dengue infection [48, 49] while the other 6 studies displayed overall poor practices [41–47]. Dengue practices in the studies commonly included the destruction of mosquito breeding sites [41–45, 47, 48], the use of pesticides [41, 44, 45], the use of mosquito nets [42, 44, 45, 48, 49], and wearing long-sleeved shirts and long pants [43–45, 49].

In addition to the knowledge and attitude components, studies looked at associations between practices and sociodemographic factors. Dengue-related practices were associated with education levels with proportions of good practices being slightly higher among urban participants (24.0%) compared to rural participants (19.4%) [44]. Past dengue experiences were also applied to practices. Caretakers of dengue patients had significantly better practices than caretakers of non-dengue cases and caretakers of healthy students [41]. Recent or current dengue infections were associated with early care-seeking and good preventive practices [47], and most participants used insecticide-treated curtains [46].

Three studies reported the proportion of participants with good practices for preventing dengue infection [43–45]. An 80% cut-off value for KAP practice scores was chosen for all three studies to determine if the study participants displayed overall good practices for preventing dengue infection.

Figure 4 presents the studies that reported the proportions of participants with good practices for preventing dengue infection. The pooled estimate of the proportion of good practices for preventing dengue infection is 25% (95% CI: 22%-27%). Higgin’s I2 of 26% suggested that heterogeneity was not significant. Begg’s rank correlation test suggested that publication bias was not significant for the proportions of good practices for preventing dengue infection (p = 1.00). The following section will provide a detailed discussion of the results.

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Meta-analysis of the proportion of people with good dengue practices in Thailand.

Discussion

The overall low knowledge and poor practice levels pertaining to dengue prevention that were detected in the systematic review and meta-analysis are alarming given the previously cited rates of increasing dengue cases throughout Thailand [20, 21] and the subsequent burdens the virus imposes on the Thai economy [14]. However, the overall positive attitudes towards dengue prevention that were also observed in the results are reassuring. This finding suggests that there is a high likelihood that participants will be open to dengue education and prevention programs given their overall high-risk perceptions of the virus.

The results of this study displayed both similar and conflicting information when compared to similar studies conducted in other countries in Southeast Asia. For example, the previously cited meta-analysis on dengue KAP in the Philippines presented similar findings pertaining to knowledge with 31.1% of the studies displaying high knowledge [33], which is close to the figure of 35.0% for this study.

However, positive attitude levels were lower at 50.1% compared to 61.0% in this study while good practice levels were higher at 35.3% compared to 25.0% in this study [33]. However, greater contrasts were observed for knowledge and practices in the results of the other previously cited meta-analysis on dengue KAP in Malaysia with 51.0% of the studies exhibiting high knowledge and 45.0% displaying good practices [31]. On the other hand, attitude levels were similar with the meta-analysis in Malaysia finding that 56.0% of the studies depicted positive attitudes [31]. Furthermore, the previously cited systematic review of dengue KAP in Malaysia found significant associations between knowledge and dengue experiences, which correlates with the systematic review of this study [32].

An additional study provided a scoping review on dengue KAP studies that included geographical representation in Southeast Asia, South Asia, the Caribbean, and South America [50]. In contrast to this study and the meta-analyses in the Philippines [33] and Malaysia [31], they detected that the majority of respondents had high knowledge levels towards dengue fever [50]. However, the scoping review focused on comparing dengue KAP in dengue epidemic areas to those of controlled dengue areas and did not include a systematic review and/or a meta-analysis [50].

Other systematic reviews and meta-analyses on KAP and different types of mosquito-borne diseases generated comparable results to this study. A systematic review on the global primary literature of risk perceptions, attitudes, and knowledge of chikungunya found overall higher knowledge of the disease in areas that had previous outbreaks of chikungunya [51]. They also concluded that the majority of the populations studied did not understand chikungunya and were therefore less likely to protect themselves from mosquito bites [51]. On a similar note, a systematic review on malaria KAP in South Asia found that a general knowledge of the disease was mostly lacking among the public and healthcare professionals [52].

One limitation of this study is that the survey questions pertaining to knowledge, attitudes, and practices are not standardized across each of the studies that were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. It is recommended that the Ministry of Public Health of Thailand work with local public health professionals within their agency, the private sector, and academic institutions to develop a standardized guide of the most crucial survey questions that should be included to measure knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards dengue prevention. This would allow for more opportunities to derive meaningful results across studies through systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The overall positive attitudes towards dengue prevention that were observed by this study suggest that there is a strong willingness for the public to take the necessary steps to mitigate their risks towards exposure to dengue. However, the overall low knowledge levels and poor practices towards dengue prevention indicate that more public health campaigns are needed to educate the public on the risk of dengue and mitigation techniques.

Conclusion

To conclude, the majority of the studies included in the systematic review reported overall low knowledge levels towards dengue prevention in Thailand. This finding was affirmed by the meta-analysis, which concluded that the overall estimate of the proportion of participants with high knowledge of dengue prevention is only 35% (95% CI: 14%-59%). Most of the studies included in the systematic review reported positive attitudes towards dengue prevention, and this finding was also affirmed by the meta-analysis, which concluded that the pooled estimate of the proportion of positive attitudes towards dengue prevention is 61% (95% CI: 43%-77%). Lastly, the majority of studies in the systematic review reported overall poor practices towards dengue prevention. Similarly, the meta-analysis found that the pooled estimate of the proportion of good practices for preventing dengue infection is only 25% (95% CI: 22%-27%).

In addition to the previously discussed limitation on the lack of standardization in KAP survey questions across studies, another limitation of this study is that it only examined dengue KAP studies in Thailand. Further research should conduct similar systematic reviews and meta-analyses on dengue KAP in other regions of the world and compare the results to this study.

Statements and Declarations

The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Data Availability

Data sharing does not apply to this research since no datasets were generated.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest Statement: declare no conflict of interest.

  • Data Availability: Data sharing does not apply to this research since no datasets were generated.

  • Funding Information: Not Applicable

  • Ethical approval: Ethical approval and informed consent did not apply since the analysis and the results were all based on previous studies.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Gale, E. L., & Saunders, M. A. (2013). The 2011 Thailand flood: climate causes and return periods. Weather, 68(9), 233–237. doi:10.1002/wea.2133
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    Thanvisitthpon, N., Shrestha, S., & Pal, I. (2018). Urban Flooding and Climate Change: A Case Study of Bangkok, Thailand. Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 9(1), 86–100. doi:10.1177/0975425317748532
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.
    Shrestha, S., & Lohpaisankrit, W. (2017). Flood hazard assessment under climate change scenarios in the Yang River Basin, Thailand. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 6(2), 285–298. doi:10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.09.006
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.
    Kure, S., & Tebakari, T. (2012). Hydrological impact of regional climate change in the Chao Phraya River Basin, Thailand. Hydrological Research Letters, 6, 53–58. doi:10.3178/hrl.6.53
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    Kuntiyawichai, K., Sri-Amporn, W., Wongsasri, S., & Chindaprasirt, P. (2020). Anticipating of Potential Climate and Land Use Change Impacts on Floods: A Case Study of the Lower Nam Phong River Basin. Water, 12(4), 1158. doi:10.3390/w12041158
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.
    Thanvisitthpon, N., Shrestha, S., Pal, I., Ninsawat, S., & Chaowiwat, W. (2020). Assessment of flood adaptive capacity of urban areas in Thailand. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 81, 106363. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106363
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    Vojinovic, Z., Alves, A., Gómez, J. P., Weesakul, S., Keerakamolchai, W., Meesuk, V., & Sanchez, A. (2021). Effectiveness of small- and large-scale Nature-Based Solutions for flood mitigation: The case of Ayutthaya, Thailand. Science of The Total Environment, 789, 147725. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147725
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    Sinnarong, N., Chen, C.-C., McCarl, B., & Tran, B.-L. (2019). Estimating the potential effects of climate change on rice production in Thailand. Paddy and Water Environment, 17(4), 761–769. doi:10.1007/s10333-019-00755-w
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.
    Pipitpukdee, S., Attavanich, W., & Bejranonda, S. (2020). Impact of Climate Change on Land Use, Yield and Production of Cassava in Thailand. Agriculture, 10(9), 402. doi:10.3390/agriculture10090402
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    Choosuk, C., Khunwishit, S., & Chevakidagarn, P. (2021). Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation of Households in U-Tapao River Sub-Basin, Thailand. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 16(6), 1091–1099. doi:10.18280/ijsdp.160610
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.
    McMillan, J. M., Birkmann, J., Tangwanichagapong, S., & Jamshed, A. (2022). Spatial Planning and Systems Thinking Tools for Climate Risk Reduction: A Case Study of the Andaman Coast, Thailand. Sustainability, 14(13), 8022. doi:10.3390/su14138022
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    Webster, D., & McElwee, P. (2009). Urban adaptation to climate change: Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City as test beds. In Fifth urban research symposium, cities and climate change: Responding to an urgent agenda (pp. 28–30).
  13. 13.↵
    Phanitchat, T., Apiwathnasorn, C., Sumroiphon, S., Samung, Y., Naksathit, A., Thawornkuno, C., & Sungvornyothin, S. (2017). The influence of temperature on the developmental rate and survival of Aedes albopictus in Thailand. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health, 48(4), 799–808.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    Thisyakorn, U., Saokaew, S., Gallagher, E., Kastner, R., Sruamsiri, R., Oliver, L., & Hanley, R. (2022). Epidemiology and costs of dengue in Thailand: A systematic literature review. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 16(12), e0010966. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0010966
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    Banu, S., Hu, W., Hurst, C., & Tong, S. (2011). Dengue transmission in the Asia-Pacific region: impact of climate change and socio-environmental factors. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 16(5), 598–607. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2011.02734.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Khetarpal, N., & Khanna, I. (2016). Dengue Fever: Causes, Complications, and Vaccine Strategies. Journal of Immunology Research, 2016, 6803098. doi:10.1155/2016/6803098
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    Dayrit, J. F., Bintanjoyo, L., Andersen, L. K., & Davis, M. D. P. (2018). Impact of climate change on dermatological conditions related to flooding: update from the International Society of Dermatology Climate Change Committee. International Journal of Dermatology, 57(8), 901–910. doi:10.1111/ijd.13901
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    Bich, T. H., Quang, L. N., Thanh Ha, L. T., Duc Hanh, T. T., & Guha-Sapir, D. (2011). Impacts of flood on health: epidemiologic evidence from Hanoi, Vietnam. Global Health Action, 4, 10.3402/gha.v4i0.6356. doi:10.3402/gha.v4i0.6356
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    Junaid Tahir, M., Rizwan Siddiqi, A., Ullah, I., Ahmed, A., Dujaili, J., & Saqlain, M. (2020). Devastating urban flooding and dengue outbreak during the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 34, 169. doi:10.47176/mjiri.34.169
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    Chumpu, R., Khamsemanan, N., & Nattee, C. (2019). The association between dengue incidences and provincial-level weather variables in Thailand from 2001 to 2014. PloS One, 14(12), e0226945. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0226945
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    Srisuphanunt, M., Puttaruk, P., Kooltheat, N., Katzenmeier, G., & Wilairatana, P. (2022). Prognostic Indicators for the Early Prediction of Severe Dengue Infection: A Retrospective Study in a University Hospital in Thailand. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease, 7(8), 162. doi:10.3390/tropicalmed7080162
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    Hoyos, W., Aguilar, J., & Toro, M. (2022). An autonomous cycle of data analysis tasks for the clinical management of dengue. Heliyon, 8(10), e10846. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10846
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    CDC. (2023, October 20). Traveling? Avoid Dengue. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved February 17, 2024, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncezid/dvbd/media/avoid-dengue.html
  24. 24.↵
    Mohsina, F. P., Faheem, I. P., Mohammad, M., Tabassum, S., Tarkash, S., Shah, I., & Patil, A. (2022). Prevalence, Pathogenesis and Identification of Clinical Risk Factors Associated with Dengue Virus (DENV). Indo Global Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 12, 189–196.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.
    Wong, L. P., Shakir, S. M. M., Atefi, N., & AbuBakar, S. (2015). Factors affecting dengue prevention practices: nationwide survey of the Malaysian public. PloS one, 10(4), e0122890.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26.↵
    Aziz, A. T., Al-Shami, S. A., Mahyoub, J. A., Hatabbi, M., Ahmad, A. H., & Md Rawi, C. S. (2014). Promoting health education and public awareness about dengue and its mosquito vector in Saudi Arabia. Parasites & vectors, 7, 1–2.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Andrade, C., Menon, V., Ameen, S., & Kumar Praharaj, S. (2020). Designing and conducting knowledge, attitude, and practice surveys in psychiatry: practical guidance. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 42(5), 478–481.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    Zhang, Y., Zahreddine, M., Abreu, K., Dantas, M. A., Charland, K., Pierce, L.,…Zinszer, K. (2023). Knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) and risk factors on dengue fever among children in Brazil, Fortaleza: A cross-sectional study. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 17(9), e0011110. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0011110
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    Wang, J., Chen, L., Yu, M., & He, J. (2020). Impact of knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP)-based rehabilitation education on the KAP of patients with intervertebral disc herniation. Ann Palliat Med, 9(2), 388–393.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    CDC. (2023, September 21). Dengue Areas of Risk Around the World | CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved February 17, 2024, from https://www.cdc.gov/dengue/areaswithrisk/around-the-world.html
  31. 31.↵
    Guad, R. M., Wu, Y. S., Aung, Y. N., Sekaran, S. D., Wilke, A. B. B., Low, W. Y.,…Azizan, N. (2021). Different Domains of Dengue Research in Malaysia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Questionnaire-Based Studies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(9), 4474. doi:10.3390/ijerph18094474
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. 32.↵
    Ajibola, L.-S. A., Shohaimi, S., Adam, M. B., Nadzir, M. N. H. M., & Segun, O. E. (2018). Systematic review of knowledge, attitude, and practices regarding dengue in Malaysia. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science, 8(12), 080–091.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Guad, R. M., Carandang, R. R., Solidum, J. N., W. Taylor-Robinson, A., Wu, Y. S., Aung, Y. N.,…Azizan, N. (2021). Different domains of dengue research in the Philippines: A systematic review and meta-analysis of questionnaire-based studies. PLoS ONE, 16(12), e0261412. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261412
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D.,…Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    Ning, L., Niu, J., Bi, X., Yang, C., Liu, Z., Wu, Q.,…Liu, C. (2020). The impacts of knowledge, risk perception, emotion and information on citizens’ protective behaviors during the outbreak of COVID-19: a cross-sectional study in China. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1751. doi:10.1186/s12889-020-09892-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.↵
    DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7(3), 177–188. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. 37.↵
    Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 327(7414), 557–560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Woodcock, J., Brozek, J., Helfand, M.,…Schünemann, H. J. (2011). GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(12), 1294–1302. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P., Altman, D. G., & Group, on behalf of the C. S. M. (2019). Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (pp. 241–284). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch10
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.↵
    Sterne, J. A., & Egger, M. (2001). Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54(10), 1046–1055. doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00377-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. 41.↵
    Kittigul, L., Suankeow, K., Sujirarat, D., & Yoksan, S. (2003). Dengue hemorrhagic fever: knowledge, attitude and practice in Ang Thong Province, Thailand. The Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, 34(2), 385–392.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    Chanyasanha, C., Han, M. M., & Teetipsatit, S. (2013). Dengue hemorrhagic fever knowledge, perception, and preventive behavior among secondary school students in Bangkok. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet Thangphaet, 96 Suppl 5, S14–24.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    Suwanbamrung, C., Saengsuwan, B., Sangmanee, T., Thrikaew, N., Srimoung, P., & Maneerattanasak, S. (2021). Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards dengue prevention among primary school children with and without experience of previous dengue infection in southern Thailand. One Health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 13, 100275. doi:10.1016/j.onehlt.2021.100275
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. 44.↵
    Rahman, M. S., Overgaard, H. J., Pientong, C., Mayxay, M., Ekalaksananan, T., Aromseree, S.,…Haque, U. (2021). Knowledge, attitudes, and practices on climate change and dengue in Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Thailand. Environmental Research, 193, 110509. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2020.110509
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.↵
    Rahman, M. S., Ekalaksananan, T., Zafar, S., Poolphol, P., Shipin, O., Haque, U.,…Overgaard, H. J. (2021). Ecological, Social, and Other Environmental Determinants of Dengue Vector Abundance in Urban and Rural Areas of Northeastern Thailand. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), 5971. doi:10.3390/ijerph18115971
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. 46.↵
    Vanlerberghe, V., Villegas, E., Jirarojwatana, S., Santana, N., Trongtorkit, Y., Jirarojwatana, R.,…Van der Stuyft, P. (2011). Determinants of uptake, short-term and continued use of insecticide-treated curtains and jar covers for dengue control. Tropical medicine & international health: TM & IH, 16(2), 162–173. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2010.02668.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    Piroonamornpun, P., Looareesuwan, P., Luvira, V., Wongchidwon, N., Pakdeewut, P., Lawpoolsri, S., & Phonrat, B. (2022). Treatment-Seeking Behaviors and Knowledge, Attitude and Practices among Suspected Dengue Adult Patients at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, Bangkok, Thailand. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(11), 6657. doi:10.3390/ijerph19116657
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    Swaddiwudhipong, W., Lerdlukanavonge, P., Khumklam, P., Koonchote, S., Nguntra, P., & Chaovakiratipong, C. (1992). A survey of knowledge, attitude and practice of the prevention of dengue hemorrhagic fever in an urban community of Thailand. The Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, 23(2), 207–211.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    Brusich, M., Grieco, J., Penney, N., Tisgratog, R., Ritthison, W., Chareonviriyaphap, T., & Achee, N. (2015). Targeting educational campaigns for prevention of malaria and dengue fever: an assessment in Thailand. Parasites & Vectors, 8, 43. doi:10.1186/s13071-015-0653-4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. 50.↵
    Rahman, A. B., Jasman, N., Ahmad, N., Salleh, K. Z., Harun, S. N. F., & Krishnan, M. (2022). Scoping Review: Barrier to The Knowledge, Attitude and Practice on Dengue Prevention. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 7(4), e001421–e001421. doi:10.47405/mjssh.v7i4.1421
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. 51.↵
    Corrin, T., Waddell, L., Greig, J., Young, I., Hierlihy, C., & Mascarenhas, M. (2017). Risk perceptions, attitudes, and knowledge of chikungunya among the public and health professionals: a systematic review. Tropical Medicine and Health, 45, 21. doi:10.1186/s41182-017-0061-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.↵
    Regmi, K., Kunwar, A., & Ortega, L. (2016). A systematic review of knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about malaria among the South Asian population. Infection Ecology & Epidemiology, 6, 10.3402/iee.v6.30822. doi:10.3402/iee.v6.30822
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted May 06, 2024.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Assessing the Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) of Dengue Fever in Thailand: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Julia Crowley, Bowen Liu, Hanan Jan
medRxiv 2024.05.04.24306876; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.04.24306876
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area