Abstract
Background
In 2002, the City of Ottawa was interested in the public perception of West Nile Virus (WNV) and mosquito control. Their objectives were to assess: awareness of WNV, practices to reduce mosquito sources, personal protective measures, and attitudes towards community-based insecticide programs.
Methods
In July 2002, we administered a telephone survey to a random, stratified sample of urban, suburban and rural Ottawa households.
Results
Surveys were completed for 491 households. Most (77.2%) respondents reported they had heard of WNV, and of these, 58.3% reported WNV was an important health issue. Mosquito repellent was the most common personal protective measure, reported among 72.5% of respondents, of whom 76.9% used DEET products. Multivariate regression analyses showed that age was a significant predictor of repellent use, with respondents aged less than 51 years more likely to use repellent than older respondents (ORadj =2.0; 95% CI: 1.2–2.3). This age group was also more likely to use at least one personal protective behaviour (ORadj=2.5; 95% CI: 1.4–4.5).
Results
Of 315 people selecting a justified time to larvicide, 4.8% chose “larvicides should never be used in Ottawa”; 33.4% stated that larviciding would be appropriate “when WNV was detected in birds or mosquitoes”; one third “needed more information” on the health and environmental effects of insecticides, prior to selecting a response.
Conclusions
Our findings highlight the need for public education reinforcing WNV importance, emphasizing the health and environmental effects of insecticides as well as appropriate personal protective behaviours. Such messages should target older and urban residents.
MeSH terms: West Nile Virus, health behaviour, health surveys, mosquito control, public health
Résumé
Contexte
En 2002, la ville d’Ottawa a voulu connaître la perception du public sur le virus du Nil occidental (VNO) et la lutte contre les moustiques. Les objectifs étaient d’évaluer: la sensibilisation au VNO, les pratiques utilisées pour réduire les sources de moustiques, les mesures de protection personnelles et les attitudes face aux programmes communautaires d’application d’insectifuges.
Méthode
En juillet 2002, nous avons réalisé une enquête téléphonique auprès d’un échantillon stratifié de ménages choisis au hasard en milieu urbain, en banlieue et en milieu rural.
Résultats
Quatre cent quatre-vingt-onze (491) ménages ont répondu à l’enquête. La plupart des répondants (77,2 %) ont déclaré être au courant de l’existence du VNO, et pour 58,3 % de ceux-ci, le VNO représente une question de santé importante. L’application d’un insectifuge est la mesure de protection personnelle la plus répandue, puisque 72,5 % des répondants affirment y avoir recours. Les produits à base de DEET sont utilisés par 76,9 % de ces derniers. Les analyses de régression multiples montrent que l’âge est un prédicteur important de l’utilisation d’insectifuges: les répondants de moins de 51 ans sont plus susceptibles d’utiliser un insectifuge que les répondants plus âgés (RCcorrigé = 2,0; IC de 95 % = 1,2–2,3). Ce groupe d’âge est aussi plus susceptible d’adopter au moins un comportement de protection personnelle (RCcorrigé = 2,5; IC de 95 % = 1,4–4,5).
Résultats
Des 315 personnes qui ont choisi un moment propice à l’application de larvicides, 4,8 % croient que les larvicides ne devraient jamais être utilisés à Ottawa, 33,4 % pensent qu’il serait approprié d’utiliser un larvicide si le VNO était détecté dans des oiseaux ou des moustiques, et le tiers des répondants considèrent qu’ils ont besoin de renseignements supplémentaires sur les effets des insectifuges sur la santé et l’environnement avant de répondre.
Conclusions
Nous concluons qu’il y a lieu de renforcer la sensibilisation du public à l’importance du VNO et d’insister sur les effets des insectifuges sur la santé et l’environnement, ainsi que sur les comportements de protection personnelle. Les messages devraient cibler les personnes âgées et celles qui demeurent en milieu urbain.
Footnotes
Field Epidemiology Summer Course (group members): Zahid Abbas, MBBS, MPH, Canadian Field Epidemiology Program, Public Health Agency of Canada; Lisa Belzak, MHSc, Centre for Surveillance Coordination, Public Health Agency of Canada; Frank Bovell, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Manitoba; Rita Finley, BSc, Foodborne, Waterborne and Zoonotic Infections Division, Public Health Agency of Canada; Ying Jiang, MSc, Cancer Division, Public Health Agency of Canada; Marcus Lem, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, Canadian Field Epidemiology Program, Public Health Agency of Canada; Paul MacPherson, MD, PhD, Division of Infectious Diseases, Ottawa Hospital and Ottawa Health Research Institute; E. Jane Parmley, DVM, Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph; Leila Srour, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, Canadian Field Epidemiology Program, Public Health Agency of Canada
References
- 1.Chin J, editor. Control of Communicable Diseases Manual. 17th. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2000. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Centers for Disease ControlPrevention. West Nile virus activity-United States, 2001. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2002;51(23):497–501. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ontario Ministry of HealthLong-Term Care. West Nile Virus Bulletin. 2001;2(6):21. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Health Canada. West Nile Virus: Canada, Results of Surveillance Program 10 June 2003 Update. 2004. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ontario Ministry of HealthLong-Term Care. West Nile virus preparedness and prevention plan for Ontario. 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 6.City of Ottawa. West Nile Virus- Preparedness and prevention plan. Available on-line at: https://doi.org/ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/hrssc/2003/04-17/westnilevirusrpt.htm (Accessed August 22, 2003).
- 7.Nayar JK, Ali A. A review of monomolecular surface films as larvicides and pupicides of mosquitoes. J Vector Ecol. 2003;28(2):190–99. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.NASCI ROGER S., NEWTON NOLAN H., TERRILLION GREGORY F., PARSONS RAY E., DAME DAVID A., MILLER JAMES R., NINIVAGGI DOMINICK V., KENT ROBERT. Interventions: Vector Control and Public Education. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2006;951(1):235–254. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb02700.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.National Capital Commission Greenbelt Master Plan Summary 1996. Available on-line at: https://doi.org/www.canadascapital.gc.ca/corporate/_pdf/GbeltMPlanSumm_e.pdf (Accessed July 28, 2004).
- 10.Epidata version 2.1a. The EpiData Association, Odense Denmark, 2001–2002.
- 11.Epi Info Software version 6.04d. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Gilman J, Myatt M. EpiCalc 2000 v1.02. London: Brixton Books; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 13.SPSS version 11.5.1. SPSS Inc. Illinois. 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 14.McCarthy TA, Hadler JL, Julian K, Walsh SJ, Biggerstaff BJ, Hinten SR, et al. West Nile Virus serosurvey and assessment of personal prevention efforts in an area with intense epizootic activity: Connecticut. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2001;951:307–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb02706.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Tsai TF, Popovici F, Cernescu C, Campbell GL, Nedelcu NI. West Nile encephalitis epidemic in southeastern Romania. Lancet. 1998;352(9130):767–71. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)03538-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Centers for Disease ControlPrevention. Outbreak of West Nile-like viral encephalitis-New York, dy1999. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999;48(38):845–49. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Canadian Paediatric Society. Insect repellents for children. 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Mostashari F, Bunning ML, Kitsutani PT, Singer DA, Nash D, Cooper MJ, et al. Epidemic West Nile encephalitis, New York, 1999: Results of a household-based seroepidemiological survey. Lancet. 2001;358:261–64. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05480-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Statistics Canada. Statistical Profile of Canadian Communities, City of Ottawa. 2001. [Google Scholar]