Skip to main content
. 2018 Aug 24;11:478. doi: 10.1186/s13071-018-3060-9

Table 4.

Summarized attitudes of the study populations towards dengue

Factor Kandy (%) Colombo (%)
Control n (%) Positive n (%) P-value (χ2)a Control n (%) Positive n (%) P-value (χ2)
Case frequency Frequent 533 (53.3) 469(46.9) 0.02* 847 (84.7) 685 (68.5) 0.04*
Occasionally 435 (43.5) 526 (52.6) 153 (15.3) 315 (31.5)
None 12 (1.2) 5 (0.5) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Need more awareness Yes 623 (62.3) 779 (77.9) 0.13 825 (82.5) 652 (65.2) 0.16
No 377 (37.7) 221 (22.1) 175 (17.5) 348 (34.8)
If yes, in which aspects Symptoms and treatments of DHF 686 (68.6) 468 (46.8) 0.03* 825 (82.5) 558 (55.8) 0.02*
Controlling 651 (65.1) 539 (53.9) 785 (78.5) 395 (39.5)
Solid Waste Management (SWM) 447 (44.7) 299 (29.9) 645 (64.5) 387 (38.7)
Attitudes on community based vector management Yes 757 (75.7) 576 (57.6) 0.03* 855 (85.5) 645 (64.5) 0.04*
No 243 (24.3) 424 (42.4) 145 (14.5) 355 (35.5)
Have there been adequate steps taken to control dengue? Yes 289 (28.9) 141 (14.1) 0.03* 455 (45.5) 205 (20.5) 0.01*
No 711 (71.1) 859 (85.9) 545 (54.5) 795 (79.5)
The responsible party for management of dengue Government 659 (65.9) 851 (85.1) 0.04* 750 (75.0) 897 (89.7) 0.03*
Non-governmental organizations (NGO) 120 (12.0) 48 (4.8) 355 (35.5) 188 (18.8)
Community 255 (25.5) 165 (16.5) 71 (7.10) 11 (1.1)
Role of the Public Health Inspector (PHI) Excellent 291 (29.1) 65 (6.5) 0.005** 355 (35.5) 205 (20.5) 0.04*
Satisfactory 298 (29.8) 42 (4.2) 225 (22.5) 170 (17.0)
Moderate 339 (33.9) 153 (15.3) 282 (28.2) 305 (30.5)
Unsatisfactory 72 (7.2) 740 (74.0) 138 (13.8) 320 (32.0)

aAll P-values are based on a Chi-square test for independence analysis of numbers in dengue- and non-dengue patient populations (in respective districts, separately)

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01