Dengue Knowledge & Preventive Practices – Rural Samar (Philippines)

Background

Dengue is a WHO-listed public-health priority transmitted mainly by Aedes aegypti/A. albopictus. Rising urbanisation and travel have expanded risk. The first Philippine epidemic occurred in 1953-54; current national cases are climbing (≈$132{,}046$ by Oct-2012).

Study Design

Cross-sectional survey in Samar Province (Sept-Feb 2012) using convenience sampling of $n = 646$ rural health-unit visitors aged $\ge 18$ yr. Instrument (Cronbach’s $\alpha = 0.90$):
• Knowledge (25 yes/no items, max $25$, categories: Poor 0-5 → Excellent 21-25).
• Practices (12 items, 0–4 Likert, max $48$, interpreted via mean score).
Data analysed with SPSS 19; Pearson’s r for knowledge-practice link, significance at $p \le 0.05$.

Key Findings

• Knowledge: mean $19.01$ ("Good"). $61.45\%$ scored 16-20; $30.18\%$ scored 21-25.
• Symptoms well recognised (fever $93.8\%$, headache $87.3\%$, joint pain $81.26\%$), but eye pain noted by only $39.16\%$.
• Cause recognised (mosquito bite $92.87\%$); feeding time correctly identified by $69.81\%$.
• Transmission misconceptions: flies $36.22\%$, ticks $52.63\%$, “all mosquitoes” $47.98\%$, sexual contact $32.5\%$.

Preventive Practices Profile (self-reported)

High-frequency actions:
• Mosquito coils $70.90\%$, cutting bushes $72.45\%$, bed nets $59.91\%$, fans $52.63\%$.
Moderate/low usage:
• Insecticide sprays $31.58\%$, screen windows $36.07\%$, professional pest control $22.60\%$.
Environmental measures (always/usually): eliminating standing water $72.60\%$ (combined "always" + "usually"), covering containers $78.17\%$, cleaning containers $79.42\%$.
Overall practice mean $= 3.02$ ("Greater extent").

Correlation Analysis

Knowledge vs. practice: $r = 0.0121$, $p = 0.7571$ → no significant relationship; high knowledge did not predict better practice.

Information Sources

Primary: TV/Radio $73.37\%$. Minor roles: schools $4.95\%$, health workers $5.11\%$.

Implications

• Misconceptions persist despite good overall knowledge; targeted content must clarify breeding sites, biting times, and true transmission routes.
• Cost factors reduce uptake of sprays, screens, professional control; campaigns should emphasise low-cost environmental actions.
• Knowledge alone is insufficient for behavioural change; continuous, multi-channel, skill-focused interventions needed (schools, health centres, trained community workers, IEC materials).

Conclusion

Rural Samar residents show "good" dengue knowledge and moderate–high preventive activity, yet misconceptions and the weak knowledge-practice link highlight a need for sustained, practical, and affordable behaviour-change strategies focusing on environmental control and accurate transmission facts.