Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Determining Perceived Self-Efficacy for Preventing Dengue Fever in Two Climatically Diverse Mexican States: A Cross-Sectional Study

Determining Perceived Self-Efficacy for Preventing Dengue Fever in Two Climatically Diverse... behavioral sciences Article Determining Perceived Self-Efficacy for Preventing Dengue Fever in Two Climatically Diverse Mexican States: A Cross-Sectional Study 1 , 2 3 , 4 5 Esther Annan *, Aracely Angulo-Molina , Wan Fairos Wan Yaacob , Nolan Kline , 6 1 Uriel A. Lopez-Lemus and Ubydul Haque Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA; mdubydul.haque@unthsc.edu Department of Chemical and Biological Sciences/DIFUS, University of Sonora, Hermosillo 83000, Mexico; aracely.angulo@unison.mx Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan Kelantan, Kampus Kota Bharu, Lembah Sireh, Kota Bharu 40450, Kelantan, Malaysia; wnfairos@uitm.edu.my Institute for Big Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence (IBDAAI), Kompleks Al-Khawarizmi, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam 40450, Selangor, Malaysia Department of Health Behavior and Health Systems, School of Public Health, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA; nolan.kline@unthsc.edu Department of Health Sciences, Center for Biodefense and Global Infectious Diseases, Colima 28078, Mexico; ulemus@cebgid.org * Correspondence: esther.annan@my.unthsc.edu Abstract: Knowledge of dengue fever and perceived self-efficacy toward dengue prevention does not necessarily translate to the uptake of mosquito control measures. Understanding how these factors Citation: Annan, E.; Angulo-Molina, (knowledge and self-efficacy) influence mosquito control measures in Mexico is limited. Our study A.; Yaacob, W.F.W.; Kline, N.; sought to bridge this knowledge gap by assessing individual-level variables that affect the use of Lopez-Lemus, U.A.; Haque, U. mosquito control measures. A cross-sectional survey with 623 participants was administered online Determining Perceived Self-Efficacy in Mexico from April to July 2021. Multiple linear regression and multiple logistic regression models for Preventing Dengue Fever in Two were used to explore factors that predicted mosquito control scale and odds of taking measures to Climatically Diverse Mexican States: control mosquitoes in the previous year, respectively. Self-efficacy ( = 0.323, p-value = < 0.0001) and A Cross-Sectional Study. Behav. Sci. knowledge about dengue reduction scale ( = 0.316, p-value =< 0.0001) were the most important 2022, 12, 94. https://doi.org/ predictors of mosquito control scale. The linear regression model explained 24.9% of the mosquito 10.3390/bs12040094 control scale variance. Increasing age (OR = 1.064, p-value =< 0.0001) and self-efficacy (OR = 1.020, Academic Editors: Joseph Ciorciari p-value = 0.0024) were both associated with an increase in the odds of taking measures against and Scott D. Lane mosquitoes in the previous year. There is a potential to increase mosquito control awareness and Received: 20 December 2021 practices through the increase in knowledge about mosquito reduction and self-efficacy in Mexico. Accepted: 23 March 2022 Published: 28 March 2022 Keywords: knowledge; self-efficacy; dengue fever; prevention; mosquito control; Mexico; Sonora; Colima Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affil- 1. Introduction iations. Dengue Fever (DF) is caused by the most common arthropod-borne virus world- wide [1] and is transmitted through the bite of female Aedes spp. mosquitoes [2]. In Mexico, the transmission of DF occurs in 29 of 32 states [3], contributing to a cost of about Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. $257 million each year [4,5]. DF results in longer waiting times in hospitals and increased Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. financial burden, especially for people from low-income households [6]. Factors enhancing This article is an open access article the distribution and spread of DF include vector dynamics such as the abundance of fe- distributed under the terms and male Aedes spp., host preference, number of bites, environmental size, and the number of conditions of the Creative Commons humans exposed to that environment [7]. Well-established preventive measures include Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// using insecticide-treated curtains (ITCs) [8] and increasing individual knowledge about DF, creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ how it spreads, and how to prevent it [9]. 4.0/). Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12040094 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 2 of 13 Effectively managing DF involves early detection and improved treatment, which helps reduce the dengue case fatality rate [10–12]. Interventions such as vaccination may prevent DF, but a more comprehensive public health intervention targets the source of the disease-causing organism. To achieve this, it is important to assess individuals’ willingness to engage in prevention efforts and determine factors that may affect their willingness and perceived ability to execute preventive measures. Prior studies demon- strated the relationship between knowledge, beliefs, and practices toward the prevention of DF [9,13,14]. While attitudes toward DF have been previously explored in areas such as Malaysia and Sri Lanka [13,14] self-efficacy, which directly influences health-seeking behav- iors or adopting health behaviors, has not been explored in Mexico. Similarly, to the best of our knowledge, the association between these attitudes, self-efficacy, and a person’s history of practicing mosquito control measures has not been explored in Mexico. Moreover, while a person might be knowledgeable or self-efficacious, this might not directly affect his/her treatment and health-seeking behavior. Despite well-known information on the spread and prevention of DF, there remains a knowledge gap about how dengue is transmitted. In parts of Sonora, Mexico, people infected with DF may be stigmatized because of beliefs that DF occurs due to person- to-person transmission [9]. Such beliefs may hamper DF prevention [9]. Furthermore, although people may know about DF generally, specific information such as DF symptoms, dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF), and dengue shock syndrome (DSS) may remain un- known [15,16]. Additionally, awareness of DF transmission [9,17] and/or its relationship to factors such as climate change [18], does not guarantee adequate knowledge about domes- tic protection against mosquito bites nor positive attitudes toward DF prevention [15,19]. Multiple factors may shape an individual’s choices to engage in prevention practices, such as education level, age, and perceived susceptibility to DF [16,17]. In Mexico, DF research has mostly focused on warmer states in the southern re- gions [9,20]. However, up until 2014, cities in the north along the US Mexican border had not experienced local transmission [9]. Due to the limitation of studies in the north compared to the south of Mexico and the climatic diversity between the two regions, we hypothesized that knowledge and self-efficacy toward dengue prevention and its associa- tion with mosquito control would vary across regions in Mexico. Northern states such as Sonora on the US–Mexico border have recently reported an increasing number of dengue cases and deaths [9]. This study compared dengue awareness between geographically different regions (mainly Colima and Sonora) in Mexico. With the vast climatic differences across Mexico, behavioral attributes may vary as well. 2. Methods 2.1. Study Design and Respondents This study used a population-based cross-sectional survey, which was distributed online across Mexico, with the majority of the targeted respondents living in Sonora and Colima. The survey was distributed to the professional, social, and personal networks of academicians in Colima and Sonora. Administration of the survey (Supplementary Materials) was made between April and July 2021 and included eight sections. The survey contained a ‘demographics’ section, while the remaining sections assessed Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices (KAP) related to mosquito control. Knowledge of DF prevention, transmission, symptoms, management, and its association with climate change was assessed. Respondents were then asked about their attitude toward education and mitigation strategies to lower the risk of DF. In the practice section, respondents were asked about household elimination methods, frequency of cleaning practices, presence of items conducive for breeding mosquitoes around one’s household, health-seeking be- havior, and self-efficacy toward dengue prevention practices. This study was reviewed by the North Texas Regional Institutional Review Board and determined to be exempt from category research. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14 and self-efficacy toward dengue prevention practices. This study was reviewed by the Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 3 of 13 North Texas Regional Institutional Review Board and determined to be exempt from cat- egory research. 2.2. Study Area 2.2. s Study Areas The study waThe s cond study ucted was in represent conducted ative urban in representati and rur ve urban al area and s in mainly rural areas Sonora in mainly Sonora and Colima Stand ate, Mexico Colima (State, Figure Mexico 1). These are (Figur ae s are e 1). These xpected to vary in their c areas are expectedlimate vul- to vary in their climate nerability, advulnerability aptive capaci ,tadaptive y, geogra capacity phical and eco , geographical logical d and iveecological rsity, and p diversity overty. The , and poverty. The study areas ha study ve a dar ivers eas if have ied cl aimat diversified e with a climat dry se eas with on from a dry Oct season ober t fr o om Apri October l and a to raApril iny and a rainy season, with high rainfall, high humidity, and high temperatures from May to September season, with high rainfall, high humidity, and high temperatures from May to September in Colima. In contrast, rainfall is scarce between June and September in Sonora. in Colima. In contrast, rainfall is scarce between June and September in Sonora. Figure 1. Map of Mexico showing locations of Colima and Sonora. 2.3. Instruments Figure 1. Map of Mexico showing locations of Colima and Sonora. A questionnaire was developed based on seven constructs and translated into Spanish. The seven sections were i. Socio-Demographics, which included information about age, sex, 2.3. Instruments duration of living in an area, the area of residence (classified either urban or rural), kind A questionnaire was developed based on seven constructs and translated into Span- of residence (this included options such as single-family homes, duplex, etc.), the state of ish. The seven sect residence, ions w and ere the i. Soc number io-Deof mographic people living s, which in an incl individual’s uded inform home, ation abo ii. ‘Knowledge ut about age, sex, duradengue tion of liv fever ing’, in an which arincl ea, uded the arquestions ea of residence about transmission, (classified either symptoms, urban oand r ru-ways to access healthcare, iii. The ‘knowledge about climate change’ focused on whether individuals ral), kind of residence (this included options such as single-family homes, duplex, etc.), the state of rper esidenc ceived e, ther and the number of pe e was a knowledge gap ople l about iving climate in an change individ anu daits l’s h association ome, ii. with dengue fever, iv. Attitudes about climate change and dengue fever, v. The ‘practices related ‘Knowledge about dengue fever’, which included questions about transmission, symp- to dengue fever ’ section contains questions about interventions taken by individuals toms, and ways to access healthcare, iii. The ‘knowledge about climate change’ focused to reduce mosquito breeding, vi. The ‘treatment-seeking approach and health-seeking on whether individuals perceived there was a knowledge gap about climate change and behavior ’ section assessed an individual’s access to healthcare, vii. The ‘level of self- its association with dengue fever, iv. Attitudes about climate change and dengue fever, v. efficacy towards dengue prevention practices at the individual, household level, and The ‘practices related to dengue fever’ section contains questions about interventions community level’ section focuses on individuals’ perception of their ability to carry out taken by individuals to reduce mosquito breeding, vi. The ‘treatment-seeking approach mosquito control measures. and health-seeking behavior’ section assessed an individual’s access to healthcare, vii. The ‘level of self-efficacy towards dengue prevention practices at the individual, household 2.4. Data Collection and Preprocessing level, and community level’ section focuses on individuals’ perception of their ability to All study participants were given online consent forms which assured them of the carry out mosquito control measures. confidentiality of the survey. After the forms were completed, they were sent the survey link to be completed online. The collected data were translated from Spanish into English for analysis. Content and construct validation were performed during pilot testing before the data collection. Variables were renamed in Microsoft Excel and exported into SAS (version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) for data cleaning. Using G*Power 3.1.9.4, Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 4 of 13 we determined that when performing a two-tailed hypothesis test for our regression model with an alpha of 0.05 and 3 to 5 predictors, a sample size of at least 262 was needed to determine an effect size as small as 0.02 [21]. The final sample comprised 622 respondents. This study was performed according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guidelines 2.5. Scoring Metrics Metric scores and scales were created for knowledge about how dengue fever is transmitted (1–3), how to reduce dengue transmission (0–8), symptoms associated with dengue fever (0–9), climatic factors that affect dengue transmission (0–6), measures taken by respondents in the previous year to control mosquitoes (1–14), presence of items in respondent’s yard (0–8), the frequency of using the measure to control adult mosquitoes (0–5), and level of self-efficacy toward dengue prevention practices (14–140). 2.6. Analysis Means were calculated for the score metrics and a confidence limit was derived for each. A chi-squared test was run to determine whether there were significant differences between dengue and climatic-related matrixes for different demographic variables. The alpha level was set to 0.05. A Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) was performed to describe the relationship between knowledge, self-efficacy, and adult mosquito control. A final model was chosen to explore predictors of mosquito control measures, after satisfying the independence assumption (Durbin-Watson statistic = 1.934), ensuring normality (Shapiro– Wilk statistic = 0.987, p-value = 0.1060) and removal of influential points based on the formula CooksD > 4/n [22]. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was then used to determine variables associated with the odds of taking measures against mosquitoes in the previous year. Gender, age, and self-efficacy were fitted into the multivariate logistic models. The effect of each variable was analyzed, and the resulting models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. 3. Results More than half of the participants in this study were female (65.92%) and the average age of respondents was 35 years. Overall, the differences in age across states was statistically significant ((F ) = 3.72, p = 0.0249). However, pairwise comparisons showed that this (2, 618 difference was only significant for the contrast between Colima and other states. A large proportion of the sample lived in Sonora (64.47%), followed by Colima (21.22%) and other Mexican states comprised 14.31%. An individual’s history of taking measures to eliminate mosquitoes within the last year varied statistically by the duration of stay in Sonora and Other states (Table 1). In Sonora, an individual’s history of taking mosquito elimination measures varied by age ((F ) = 17.17, p < 0.0001). This variance was not seen in Colima (2, 397 and other states. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 5 of 13 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14 Table 1. Demographic Characteristics by people who took measures to eliminate mosquitoes in their Table 1. Demographic Characteristics by people who took measures to eliminate mosquitoes in their households in the past year. households in the past year. Measures to Eliminate Mosquito (n (%)) Measures to Eliminate Mosquito (n (%)) States Took Did Not Take States Not Sur Did e Not Take p-Value Measures Me Took asur Measures es Not Sure p-Value Measures Age (years) 37.3 ± 11.7 37.4 ± 14.8 27 ± 4.0 Age (years) 37.3  11.7 37.4  14.8 27  4.0 Male 46 (86.79%) 6 (11.32%) 1 (1.89%) Gender 0.2095 Male 46 (86.79%) 6 (11.32%) 1 (1.89%) Female 73 (92.41%) 3 (3.80%) 3 (3.80%) 0.2095 Gender Female 73 (92.41%) 3 (3.80%) 3 (3.80%) Rural 6 (100%) 0 (%) 0 (%) b Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14 Residence Area 0.7094 Rural 6 (100%) 0 (%) 0 (%) Urban 113 (89.68%) 9 (7.14%) 4 (3.17%) 0.7094 Residence Area Urban 113 (89.68%) 9 (7.14%) 4 (3.17%) Colima 3 years or less 22 (88.00%) 1 (4.00%) 2 (8.00%) Colima Duration of stay 3 years or less 22 (88.00%) 1 (4.00%) 0.2359 2 (8.00%) Above 3 years 97 (90.65%) 8 (7.48%) 2 (1.87%) Table 1. Demographic Characteristics by people who took measures to eliminate mosquitoes in their Duration of stay 0.2359 Above 3 years 97 (90.65%) 8 (7.48%) 2 (1.87%) households in the past year. Single-family home 84 (89.36%) 7 (7.45%) 3 (3.19%) b Single-family home 84 (89.36%) 7 (7.45%) 3 (3.19%) Kind of Home 0.8870 0.8870 Measures to Eliminate Mosquito (n (%)) Kind of Home *Others 35 (92.11%) 2 (5.26%) 1 (2.63%) *Others 35 (92.11%) 2 (5.26%) 1 (2.63%) States Took Did Not Take Number in Less than 3 27 (87.10%) 3 (9.68%) 1 (3.23%) Less than 3 27 (87.10%) 3 (9.68%) 1 (3.23%) Number in Not Sure p-Value 0.8893 0.8893 Measures Measures Household 3 or more 374 or (mor 90.24% e ) 6 (7 74 .32%) (90.24%) 2 (2.44%) 6 (7.32%) 2 (2.44%) Household Age (years) 37.3 ± 11.7 37.4 ± 14.8 27 ± 4.0 Age (years) 37.1 ± 13.0 26.7 ± 8.6 29.7 ± 12.3 Age (years) 37.1  13.0 26.7  8.6 29.7  12.3 Male 46 (86.79%) 6 (11.32%) 1 (1.89%) Gender 0.2095 Male 104 (80.62%) 17 (13.18%) 8 (6.20%) Female 73 (92.41%) 3 (3.80%) 3 (3.80%) Gender 0.8633 Male 104 (80.62%) 17 (13.18%) 8 (6.20%) b Rural 6 (100%) 0 (%) 0 (%) Female 225 (82.72%) 31 (11.40%) 16 (5.88%) 0.8633 Gender Residence Area 0.7094 Female 225 (82.72%) 31 (11.40%) 16 (5.88%) Urban 113 (89.68%) 9 (7.14%) 4 (3.17%) Rural 32 (78.05%) 6 (14.63%) 3 (7.32%) Rural 32 (78.05%) 6 (14.63%) 3 (7.32%) Residence Area 0.7807 Colima 3 years or less 22 (88.00%) 1 (4.00%) 2 (8.00%) b 0.7807 Residence Area Urban 297 (82.50%) 42 (11.67%) 21 (5.83%) Duration of stay 0.2359 Urban 297 (82.50%) 42 (11.67%) 21 (5.83%) Above 3 years 97 (90.65%) 8 (7.48%) 2 (1.87%) Sonora Sonora 3 years or less 32 (69.57%) 9 (19.57%) 5 (10.87%) 3 years or less 32 (69.57%) 9 (19.57%) 5 (10.87%) b Single-family home 84 (89.36%) 7 (7.45%) 3 (3.19%) Duration of stay 0.0620 b Duration of stay Kind of Home 0.0620 0.8870 Above 3 years 297 (83.66%) 39 (10.99%) 19 (5.35%) Above 3 years 297 (83.66%) 39 (10.99%) 19 (5.35%) *Others 35 (92.11%) 2 (5.26%) 1 (2.63%) Single-family home 254 (83.83%) 31 (10.23%) 18 (5.94%) Number in Less than 3 27 (87.10%) 3 (9.68%) 1 (3.23%) Single-family home 254 (83.83%) 31 (10.23%) 18 (5.94%) b b 0.8893 Kind of Home 0.1639 0.1639 Kind of Home b Household 3 or more 74 (90.24%) 6 (7.32%) 2 (2.44%) *Others 75 (76.53%) 17 (17.35%) 6 (6.12%) *Others 75 (76.53%) 17 (17.35%) 6 (6.12%) Age (years) 37.1 ± 13.0 26.7 ± 8.6 29.7 ± 12.3 Less than 3 61 (81.33%) 10 (13.33%) 4 (5.33%) Number in Number in Less than 3 61 (81.33%) 10 (13.33%) 4 (5.33%) 0.9851 b 0.9851 Male 104 (80.62%) 17 (13.18%) 8 (6.20%) 3 or more 170 (82.13%) 11 (5.31%) 26 (12.56%) Household b Gender 0.8633 Household 3 or more 170 (82.13%) 11 (5.31%) 26 (12.56%) Female 225 (82.72%) 31 (11.40%) 16 (5.88%) Age (years) 33.2  10.6 29.0  11.6 24.0  2.8 Age (years) 33.2± 10.6 29.0 ± 11.6 24.0 ± 2.8 Rural 32 (78.05%) 6 (14.63%) 3 (7.32%) Residence Area 0.7807 Urban 297 (82.50%) 42 (11.67%) 21 (5.83%) Male 26 (86.67%) 2 (6.67%) 2 (6.67%) 0.0509 Male 26 (86.67%) 2 (6.67%) 2 (6.67%) 0.0509 Gender Sonora Gender 3 years or less 32 (69.57%) 9 (19.57%) 5 (10.87%) Female 48 (81.36%) 11 (18.64%) - b Female 48 (81.36%) 11 (18.64%) - Duration of stay 0.0620 Above 3 years 297 (83.66%) 39 (10.99%) 19 (5.35%) Rural 5 Rural (83.33%) 1 (16 5.67 (83.33%) %) 0 (0.00% 1) (16.67%) 0.9216 0 (0.00%) 0.9216 Single-family home 254 (83.83%) 31 (10.23%) 18 (5.94%) Residence Area Residence Area Kind of Home 0.1639 Urban 69 (83.13%) 12 (14.46%) 2 (2.41%) Urban 69 (83.13%) 12 (14.46%) 2 (2.41%) *Others 75 (76.53%) 17 (17.35%) 6 (6.12%) ꭞOther States 3 years or less 8 (57.14%) 4 (28.57%) 2 (14.29%) 0.0008 3 years or less 8 (57.14%) 4 (28.57%) 2 (14.29%) 0.0008 b Number in Less than 3 61 (81.33%) 10 (13.33%) 4 (5.33%) Duration b of stay States Duration of stay 0.9851 Above 3 years 66 (88.00%) 9 (12.00%) 0 (0%) b Household 3 or more 170 (82.13%) 11 (5.31%) 26 (12.56%) Above 3 years 66 (88.00%) 9 (12.00%) 0 (0%) Single-family home 44 (84.62%) 8 (15.38%) 0 (0%) 0.2351 a Age (years) 33.2± 10.6 29.0 ± 11.6 24.0 ± 2.8 Single-fa bmily home 44 (84.62%) 8 (15.38%) 0 (0%) 0.2351 Kind of Home Kind of Home *Others 30 (81.08%) 5 (13.51%) 2 (5.41%) Male 26 (86.67%) 2 (6.67%) 2 (6.67%) 0.0509 *Others 30 (81.08%) 5 (13.51%) 2 (5.41%) Gender Less than 3 19 (82.61%) 3 (13.04%) 1 (4.35%) Female 48 (81.36%) 11 (18.64%) - Number in 0.9078 Number in Less than 3 19 (82.61%) 3 (13.04%) 1 (4.35%) Rural 5 (83.33%) 1 (16.67%) 0 (0.00%) 0.9216 Household 3 or more 35 (85.37%) 5 (12.20%) 1 (2.44%) 0.9078 Residence Area Household 3 or more 35 (85.37%) 5 (12.20%) 1 (2.44%) Urban 69 (83.13%) 12 (14.46%) 2 (2.41%) *Others includes structures such as Terrace, Duplex and Condominium. ꭞOther states include states such as *Others includes structures such as Terrace, Duplex and Condominium. ꭞOther states include 3 years or less 8 (57.14%) 4 (28.57%) 2 (14.29%) 0.0008 Morelos, Nuevo Leon, Baja California, Chiapas, Ciudad de Mexico, Durango, Jalisco, Queretaro, Puebla, San Luis States Duration of stay states such as Morelos, Nuevo Leon, Baja California, Chiapas, Ciudad de Mexico, Durango, Jalisco, Above 3 years 66 (88.00%) 9 (12.00%) 0 (0%) a b Potosi, Guerrero and Zacatecas. : Values were expressed as mean  SD : Values were expressed as n (%). Queretaro, Puebla, San Luis Potosi, Guerrero and Zacatecas. : Values were expressed as mean Single-family home 44 (84.62%) 8 (15.38%) 0 (0%) 0.2351 Kind of Home *Others 30 (81.08%) 5 (13.51%) 2 (5.41%) ± SD : Values were expressed as n (%). 3.1. Knowledge about Factors Associated with DF Number in Less than 3 19 (82.61%) 3 (13.04%) 1 (4.35%) 0.9078 Household 3 or more 35 (85.37%) 5 (12.20%) 1 (2.44%) 3.1. Knowl Kneo dg we about ledge Fac scorte ors s f Asso or DF ciate trad n s with DF mission (Tables S1 and S2.2), symptoms (Tables S2.1 and S2.4), *Others includes structures such as Terrace, Duplex and Condominium. ꭞOther states include and climatic factors associated with DF (Table S2.5) were higher for males. Although knowledge of Knowledge scores for DF transmission (Tables S1 and S2.2), symptoms (Tables S2.1 states such as Morelos, Nuevo Leon, Baja California, Chiapas, Ciudad de Mexico, Durango, Jalisco, Queretaro, Puebla, San Luis Potosi, Guerrero and Zacatecas. : Values were expressed as mean and DF S2 re .4 d ), uan ctid clim on waat s h ic ig fa hce tr ors as in msoci alesat fo er dt wit he t h o DF tal p (T oab pu le lat Si2 o.n 5) w (Tae b rle e highe S2.3 a rn for d F m iga u le re s. SAlt- 1a) and Sonora ± SD : Values were expressed as n (%). hough kn (Table Sowl 3), ie n dge o Colim f DF a, re fem duct ales ion w hada m s higher ore kno in m wlea dlg ee s fo (Tr t ab h le e t S o 3t)a . l popu In botlat h S io on n ( oT ra able and S2 C .3 o lima, males and Figure S1a) and Sonora (Table S3), in Colima, females had more knowledge (Table had higher knowledge scores as regards the effect of climatic factors on dengue transmission than 3.1. Knowledge about Factors Associated with DF S3). In both Sonora and Colima, males had higher knowledge scores as regards the effect females (Table 2). This difference was statistically significant in Sonora. Males also had higKnowledge her scores for DF transmission (Tables S1 and S2.2), symptoms (Tables S2.1 of climatic factors on dengue transmission than females (Table 2). This difference was sta- and S2.4), and climatic factors associated with DF (Table S2.5) were higher for males. Alt- scores for the presence of items in their yards (Table 2 and Figure S2a). Females had higher scores hough knowledge of DF reduction was higher in males for the total population (Table S2.3 tistically significant in Sonora. Males also had higher scores for the presence of items in for measures taken to control mosquitoes in the previous year (Table 2) and a higher frequency of and Figure S1a) and Sonora (Table S3), in Colima, females had more knowledge (Table using measures to control adult mosquitoes (Table 2). Contrary to Sonora and Colima, in other S3). In both Sonora and Colima, males had higher knowledge scores as regards the effect of climatic factors on dengue transmission than females (Table 2). This difference was sta- states, females had higher knowledge scores and scored higher in taking measures to prevent tistically significant in Sonora. Males also had higher scores for the presence of items in mosquitoes in the previous year, while males had higher scores presence of items in the yard and a higher frequency of using measures to control mosquitoes (Table 2). Compared to Sonora residents, people living in Colima had higher scores for knowledge about how to reduce dengue Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 6 of 13 transmission and dengue symptoms (Tables S2.3 and S2.4). Furthermore, unlike Sonora, in Colima and other states, people living in urban areas had higher knowledge scores compared to those in rural areas (Table 2). The group comparison was statistically significant in other states. For all states, urban areas had higher scores for measures taken to control mosquitoes and lower scores for the presence of items in the respondent’s yard. However, while rural areas in Sonora and other states scored lower for the frequency of using measures to control adult mosquitoes, rural areas in Colima scored higher (Table 2). Across states, there was a statistically significant difference between states for being diagnosed (Figure S3c) or having a neighbor diagnosed with DF in the past year (Table 3). The difference in having healthcare providers was significant between residence areas (Table 3). Table 2. Knowledge about factors associated with mosquito transmission, prevention, and control for different socio-economic parameters. Knowledge Measures Taken Frequency of Presence of about Climatic by Respondents Using Items in State Factors Affecting in the Previous Measures to Variable Respondent’s Dengue Year to Control Control Adult Yard Transmission Mosquitoes Mosquitoes 2.34 (1.29) 9.88 (1.62) 1.85 (1.29) 1.62 (1.21) Male Gender (1.99, 2.69) (9.21, 10.55) (1.49, 2.21) (1.29, 1.96) 2.06 (1.54) 10.36 (2.00) 1.79 (1.42) 1.72 (1.47) Female (1.72, 2.40) (9.58, 11.13) (1.46, 2.13) (1.39, 2.05) T-test p-value 0.2827 0.3482 0.8358 0.6853 2.08 (1.44) 10.00 (2.06) 2.58 (1.08) 1.75 (1.86) Rural Residence (1.16, 3.00) (8.42, 11.58) (1.89, 3.27) (0.57, 2.93) Colima Area 2.18 (1.45) 10.13 (1.80) 1.73 (1.37) 1.68 (1.32) Urban (1.92, 2.45) (9.60, 10.70) (1.48, 1.99) (1.44, 1.91) T-test p-value 0.8200 0.8148 0.0399 0.8570 Single-family 2.20 (1.42) 10.12 (1.45) 1.82 (1.43) 1.50 (1.25) home (1.91, 2.49) (9.6, 10.62) (1.52, 2.11) (1.24, 1.76) Kind of Home 2.11 (1.52) 10.16 (2.41) 1.82 (1.19) 2.13 (1.55) *Others (1.61, 2.61) (9.00, 11.32) (1.41, 2.24) (1.62, 2.64) T-test p-value 0.7285 0.9476 0.9701 0.0156 2.47 (1.56) 9.41 (2.33) 2.60 (1.67) 1.78 (1.52) Male (2.20, 2.74) (8.72, 10.11) (2.29, 2.90) (1.51, 2.04) Gender 2.02 (1.44) 9.66 (2.32) 2.40 (1.44) 1.90 (1.55) Female (1.85, 2.19) (9.17, 10.16) (2.22, 2.58) (1.72, 2.09) T-test p-value 0.0049 0.5574 0.2538 0.4463 2.23 (1.43) 8.81 (3.06) 2.53 (1.39) 1.83 (1.51) Rural Residence (1.92, 2.55) (7.60, 10.03) (2.20, 2.84) (1.50, 2.16) Sonora Area 2.15 (1.51) 9.77 (2.06) 2.45 (1.55) 1.87 (1.55) Urban (1.98, 2.31) (9.37, 10.17) (2.27, 2.63) (1.70, 2.03) T-test p-value 0.6381 0.0555 0.6975 0.8474 Single-family 2.16 (1.47) 9.59 (2.22) 2.51 (1.49) 1.88 (1.50) home (2.00, 2.33) (9.15, 10.03) (2.33, 2.68) (1.71, 2.05) Kind of Home 2.16 (1.55) 9.53 (2.65) 2.35 (1.61) 1.81 (1.66) *Others (1.85, 2.47) (8.58, 10.49) (2.11, 2.68) (1.47, 2.14) T-test p-value 0.9896 0.9013 0.3893 0.6889 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 7 of 13 Table 2. Cont. Knowledge Measures Taken Frequency of Presence of about Climatic by Respondents Using Items in State Factors Affecting in the Previous Measures to Variable Respondent’s Dengue Year to Control Control Adult Yard Transmission Mosquitoes Mosquitoes 2.20 (1.32) 9.22 (2.39) 2.53 (1.59) 2.27 (1.39) Male (1.71, 2.69) (7.39, 11.05) (1.94, 3.13) (1.75, 2.78) Gender 2.41 (1.39) 9.87 (2.00) 2.09 (1.37) 2.20 (1.57) Female (2.04, 2.77) (8.76, 10.97) (1.72, 2.45) (1.79, 2.61) T-test p-value 0.5023 0.4838 0.1788 0.8526 1.82 (1.37) 8.20 (1.64) 2.43 (1.83) 2.05 (1.21) Rural Residence (1.21, 2.42) (6.16, 10.24) (1.59, 3.26) (1.51, 2.58) Area Other States 2.51 (1.33) 10.00 (2.11) 2.18 (1.50) 2.18 (1.55) Urban (2.18, 2.83) (8.98, 11.02) (1.92, 2.58) (1.84, 2.51) T-test p-value 0.0391 0.0918 0.5073 0.5229 Single-family 2.48 (1.39) 9.80 (2.11) 2.22 (1.61) 2.29 (1.53) home (2.09, 2.87) (8.63, 10.97) (1.76, 2.68) (1.86, 2.71) Kind of Home 2.13 (1.32) 9.33 (2.24) 2.28 (1.23) 2.14 (1.49) *Others (1.70, 2.57) (7.61, 11.05) (1.86, 2.70) (1.64, 2.63) T-test p-value 0.2411 0.6131 0.8571 0.6386 Table 3. Proportions and p-value for different Chi-Squared Test results with 95% significance. Variable DF Diagnosis in the Past Year (n (%)) Demographic Yes No Do Not Know p-Value Variable Male 19 (8.96%) 192 (90.57%) 1 (0.47%) Gender 0.5942 Female 32 (7.80%) 373 (90.98%) 5 (91.22%) Rural 2 (3.77%) 51 (96.23%) 0 (0.00%) Residence Area 0.3450 Urban 49 (8.61%) 514 (90.33%) 6 (1.05%) Colima 29 (21.97%) 103 (78.03%) 0 (0.00%) State Sonora 8 (2.00%) 388 (96.76%) 5 (1.25%) <0.0001 Other states 14 (15.73%) 74 (83.15%) 1 (1.12%) Variable Availability of HealthCare providers (n (%)) Demographic Yes No Do not know p-value Variable Male 173 (81.60%) 17 (8.02%) 22 (10.38%) Gender 0.2602 Female 322 (78.54%) 27 (6.59%) 61 (14.88%) Rural 32 (60.38%) 10 (18.87%) 11 (20.75%) Residence Area 0.0003 Urban 463 (81.37%) 34 (5.98%) 72 (12.65%) Colima 101 (76.52%) 7 (5.30%) 24 (18.18%) State Sonora 322 (80.30%) 29 (7.23%) 50 (12.47%) 0.3421 Other states 72 (76.52%) 8 (8.99%) 9 (10.11%) Variable Any neighbor diagnosed with DF (n (%)) Demographic Yes No Do not know p-value Variable Male 24 (11.32%) 86 (40.57%) 102 (48.11%) Gender 0.7485 Female 55 (13.41%) 165 (40.24%) 190 (46.34%) Rural 5 (9.43%) 28 (52.83%) 20 (37.74%) Residence Area 0.1519 Urban 74 (13.01%) 223 (39.19%) 272 (47.80%) Colima 31 (23.48%) 37 (28.03%) 64 (48.48%) State Sonora 32 (7.98%) 177 (44.14%) 192 (47.88%) <0.0001 Other states 16 (17.98%) 37 (41.57%) 36 (40.45%) Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 8 of 13 3.2. Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices Associated with Climate Change and DF People’s perceptions of the occurrence of climate change varied significantly depend- ing on their area of residence (Table S4). Similarly, there were significant variances seen by gender and state for perceived need for education programs on mitigation strategies related to climate change (Table S4). States varied in their opinion about the need for governmental action against climate change and their use of larval and adult mosquito control measures (Table S4). Compared to those living in rural areas, people living in urban areas had higher scores for taking measures to control mosquitoes in the previous year (Table S5.1 and Figure S4d) and using adult mosquito control measures (Table S5.3). Urban dwellers had lower scores for the presence of items in their yard (Table S5.2) 3.3. Self-Efficacy Scores Associated with the Mosquito Reduction Practices Figure 2A–C shows left skewness, indicating that the highest proportion of participants had higher self-efficacy scores. Although the minimum self-efficacy score for males was lower (14 vs. 17), their mean score was 118.54, with a median score of 124 while females had a mean score of 117.70, and a median score of 121 (Table S6). The minimum self- efficacy score for Colima was 70, while that of Sonora was 14. The mean and median scores were also higher for Colima (121 and 125, respectively), compared to Sonora (117 and 121, respectively). The mean self-efficacy score for the urban areas (118) was higher compared to rural areas (114) (Table S6). Figure 3 shows no correlation between the self-efficacy scale and the adult mosquito control scale. However, there was a weak correlation (0.22) between knowledge about the dengue reduction scale and the adult mosquito control scale. When looking at general mosquito control measures as a dependent variable in a multiple linear regression model (Table S7), for every unit increase in the self-efficacy scale, there is a 0.04 increase in the mosquito control scale, accounting for other variables. Furthermore, when controlling for other variables, for every unit increase in the yard items scale, the mosquito control measure scale decreased by 0.21 units. After controlling for other factors, a one-unit increase in the knowledge about mosquito reduction scale increased the mosquito control measure scale by 0.25 units. Age was not significantly associated with the mosquito control scale (Table S7). Of the four predictors in the final multiple linear regression model (Table S7), self-efficacy had the highest standardized estimate, indicating that it was the most important predictor of mosquito control measures, followed by knowledge, then the presence of items in an individual’s yard. Table 4 and Table S8a,b show the final multiple logistic regression model of factors that are associated with the odds of taking measures against the mosquito. Gender was not significantly associated with the odds of taking measures against the mosquito. However, a yearly increase in age was associated with 6% higher odds of taking measures against the mosquito. Moreover, a one-unit increase in the self-efficacy scale was associated with 2% higher odds of taking measures against the mosquito. Table 4. The final model of factors associated with the odds of taking measures against mosquitoes. Independent Variables OR (95% CI) p-Value Gender Female 1.040 (0.603–1.792) 0.8890 Male Ref - Age 1.064 (1.036–1.092) <0.0001 Self-efficacy 1.020 (1.007–1.033) 0.0024 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 9 of 13 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14 Figure 2. (A–C) Distribution of self-efficacy by demographic factors. Figure 2. (A–C) Distribution of self-efficacy by demographic factors. Figure 2. (A–C) Distribution of self-efficacy by demographic factors. Figure 3. Pearson’s correlation of knowledge, self-efficacy, and mosquito control measure scales. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 10 of 13 4. Discussion Self-efficacy and knowledge were significant predictors of mosquito control measures. Higher scores of these predictors were associated more with Colima compared to Sonora. However, in this study, higher knowledge scores in Colima did not translate into a lower proportion of people who experienced DF in the previous year. Further exploration of these findings may require more objective measures of mosquito control in future studies and surveillance of DF to ensure cases are reported accurately across Mexico. However, to address inadequacies of mosquito control measures, programs may target ways to improve self-efficacy and knowledge barriers. Both knowledge and self-efficacy may positively influence behavioral outcomes [23,24]. However, their effectiveness may depend on factors such as time constraints, risk percep- tions, and trust [25–27]. Other studies found self-efficacy and trust to be more beneficial than the perceived risk of disease in predicting behavioral changes [28]. In our study, knowledge of DF reduction practices was weakly correlated with adult mosquito control measures (Figure 3), and this association was found to be significant in the multiple linear regression model. Similarly, a person’s self-efficacy to perform mosquito control measures was positively linked with mosquito control measures. Of the four predictors in the final multiple linear regression model (Table S8), self-efficacy had the highest standardized estimate, indicating that it was the most important predictor of mosquito control measures, followed by knowledge, then the presence of items in an individual’s yard. While people living in Colima had higher knowledge scores, DF diagnosis was highest in Colima. This unexpected negative association may be due to underreporting of DF in Sonora compared to Colima. Due to the longer presence of DF in the southern regions [9], northern states such as Sonora may be lagging on awareness and measures to take when presenting with symptoms of DF. Underreporting of these symptoms may further result in underdiagnoses [29]. Future studies may benefit from active surveillance of DF in Northern Mexico. On the contrary, the lower proportion of DF cases seen in Sonora might further explain the lower DF knowledge scores observed in Sonora. This implies that there may be a need to increase DF awareness in Sonora due to the implication of the Aedes spp. in the spread of DF in new locations and its adaptation to new environments [2]. Furthermore, as the climate changes, fluctuating temperatures lead to warmer northern states and cases increase northward [30,31], educational efforts will need to be intensified. Males in Sonora and Colima had higher knowledge scores compared to females. How- ever, neither gender nor the interaction between gender and knowledge scores was significant predictors of mosquito control practices. While higher knowledge scores were estimated for males, having items in one’s yard was also higher among males. This may be explained by women having a higher burden of household labor [32]. Hence, increased knowledge among women might reflect more preventive measures taken against mosquitoes. Higher frequencies of mosquito control measures in urban regions (Tables S5.1 and S5.3) were a consistent finding with prior studies which have shown higher adoption of mosquito control practices in semi-urban regions compared to rural regions [33]. Like its effect on mosquito control measures, increased self-efficacy was associated with increased odds of using control measures within the past year. Similarly, older age was also associated with higher odds of taking measures. This can be explained by the perceived low risk of DF among younger adult populations [16]. Compared to Colima, the age disparity between those who took mosquito control measures and those who did not is higher in Sonora; individuals who took measures against mosquitoes in the previous year were on average aged 37 in both Sonora and Colima. However, the mean ages for those who did not take measures in Colima and Sonora were 37 and 26, respectively. A further focus on this age disparity in Sonora may be warranted. This study has some limitations. Notably, the survey was administered to a conve- nience sample by professional, social, and personal networks of academicians in Colima and Sonora. As a characteristic of convenient sampling techniques, the sampling frame was restrictive, with small sample size, limiting the generalizability of results to other Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 11 of 13 populations. Overall, there were 32 extreme outliers identified when running the multiple linear regression model. However, these were excluded to prevent any source of bias in the estimates. Furthermore, based on our sample size calculation, our sample was large enough to significantly detect small effects on the linear scale. Due to the cross- sectional nature of the study, temporality may not be established, and causality may not be inferred from the estimates. Future research may focus on programs that improve the knowledge and self-efficacy of individuals living in both Sonora and Colima. While knowledge scores were higher in Colima, a higher proportion of people diagnosed with DF indicates that there is still a need for mosquito control programs. Such efforts can include using game-based training courses used in insecticide resistance management [34]. Courses may be modified using citizen science for community-specific impact, which has been shown to improve mosquito control programs among individuals perceived to be self-efficacious [35]. Furthermore, using mobile applications in disseminating information about mosquito control may appeal to younger adults who had lower mean scores for taking measures against mosquitoes in the previous year. 5. Conclusions This study assessed the association between knowledge about DF, self-efficacy, and the use of mosquito control measures in contrasting states such as Sonora and Colima in Mexico. It was observed that individuals in Sonora had lower scores in knowledge, as well as mosquito control outcomes compared to those in Colima. However, DF cases were higher in Colima. Age, self-efficacy, and knowledge were significantly associated with taking mosquito control measures. DF prevention interventions may focus on improving general knowledge about mosquito control measures in the female population and among younger individuals in Sonora. Future studies may use improved surveillance systems across states to mitigate potential underreporting. There should also be a focus on programs that help to improve an individual’s self-efficacy. Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https: //www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/bs12040094/s1, (Supplementary tables and figures files and questionnaire). Table S1. Knowledge about how dengue fever is transmitted (Dengue_Kn) statistics for different socio-economic parameters, by state, Table S2.1. Knowledge about symptoms associ- ated with dengue fever (DV_symp_Kn) statistics for different socio-economic parameters by state, Table S2.2. Knowledge about how dengue fever is transmitted (Dengue_Kn) statistics for differ- ent socio-economic parameters, Table S2.3. Knowledge about how to reduce dengue transmission (DV_reduc_Kn) statistics for different socio-economic parameters, Table S2.4. Knowledge about symptoms associated with dengue fever (DV_symp_Kn) statistics for different socio-economic param- eters, Table S2.5. Knowledge about climatic factors that affect dengue transmission (DV_clim_Kn) statistics for different socio-economic parameters, Table S3. Knowledge about how to reduce dengue transmission (DV_reduc_Kn) statistics for different socio-economic parameters by state, Table S4. Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice about Climate change and dengue fever, Table S5.1. Measures taken by respondents in the previous year to control mosquitoes (DV_contr_meas) statistics for dif- ferent socio-economic parameters, Table S5.2. Presence of items in respondent’s yard (Items_yard) statistics for different socio-economic parameters, Table S5.3. The frequency of using the mea- sure to control adult mosquitoes (DV_adult_cont) statistics for different socio-economic parameters, Table S6. Level of self-efficacy toward dengue prevention practices (Self_effic) statistics for different socio-economic parameters, Table S7. Univariate and multivariate multiple linear regression analysis with mosquito control measures (DV_contr_meas) as a dependent variable, Table S8a. The results of multiple logistic regression analysis on predicting the odds of taking measures against mosquitoes the previous year, Table S8b. Univariate and multivariate multiple logistic regression analysis on predicting the odds of taking measures against mosquitoes the previous year. Figure S1. Distribution of knowledge of mosquito reduction by demographic factors, Figure S2. Distribution of items in the yard by demographic factors, Figure S3. Distribution of dengue diagnosis by demographic factors, Figure S4. Distribution of mosquito control measures by demographic factors. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 12 of 13 Author Contributions: E.A.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Visualization, Prepa- ration of original draft. A.A.-M.: Data collection, questionnaire translations, Writing—review & editing. W.F.W.Y.: Methodology, Writing—review & editing. U.A.L.-L.: Data collection. N.K.: Writing—review & editing. U.H.: Conceptualization, Data Collection, Preparation of the original draft, Writing—review & editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: There was no funding for this study. U.H. was supported by the Research Council of Norway (grant # 281077). Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was approved by the “North Texas Regional Institutional Review Board”. Informed Consent Statement: Respondents were provided informed consent before the survey and were given an option to accept or decline participation in the survey. Data Availability Statement: Data will be made available based upon request through the corre- sponding author. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Martinez, J.D.; Garza, J.A.C.; Cuellar-Barboza, A. Going Viral 2019: Zika, Chikungunya, and Dengue. Dermatol. Clin. 2019, 37, 95–105. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 2. Khetarpal, N.; Khanna, I. Dengue Fever: Causes, Complications, and Vaccine Strategies. J. Immunol. Res. 2016, 2016, 6803098. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Secretaría de Salud México. Programa De Acción Específico Del Programa De Prevención Y Control De Enfermedades Trans- mitidas Por Vectores E Intoxicación Por Veneno De Artrópodos 2020–2024. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/salud/ documentos/programa-de-accion-especificao (accessed on 20 December 2021). 4. Undurraga, E.A.; Betancourt-Cravioto, M.; Ramos-Castaneda, J.; Martinez-Vega, R.; Mendez-Galvan, J.; Gubler, D.J.; Guzman, M.G.; Halstead, S.B.; Harris, E.; Kuri-Morales, P.; et al. Economic and disease burden of dengue in Mexico. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2015, 9, e0003547. [CrossRef] 5. Zubieta-Zavala, A.; López-Cervantes, M.; Salinas-Escudero, G.; Ramírez-Chávez, A.; Castañeda, J.R.; Hernández-Gaytán, S.I.; López Yescas, J.G.; Durán-Arenas, L. Economic impact of dengue in Mexico considering reported cases for 2012 to 2016. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2018, 12, e0006938. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 6. Ladner, J.; Rodrigues, M.; Davis, B.; Besson, M.H.; Audureau, E.; Saba, J. Societal impact of dengue outbreaks: Stakeholder perceptions and related implications. A qualitative study in Brazil, 2015. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e0005366. 7. Campbell, K.M.; Lin, C.D.; Iamsirithaworn, S.; Scott, T.W. The complex relationship between weather and dengue virus transmission in Thailand. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2013, 89, 1066–1080. [CrossRef] 8. Paz-Soldan, V.A.; Bauer, K.M.; Lenhart, A.; Cordova Lopez, J.J.; Elder, J.P.; Scott, T.W.; McCall, P.J.; Kochel, T.J.; Morrison, A.C. Experiences with insecticide-treated curtains: A qualitative study in Iquitos, Peru. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 582. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 9. Arellano, C.; Castro, L.; Diaz-Caravantes, R.E.; Ernst, K.C.; Hayden, M.; Reyes-Castro, P. Knowledge and Beliefs about Dengue Transmission and Their Relationship with Prevention Practices in Hermosillo, Sonora. Front Public Health 2015, 3, 142. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 10. Harapan, H.; Michie, A.; Mudatsir, M.; Sasmono, R.T.; Imrie, A. Epidemiology of dengue hemorrhagic fever in Indonesia: Analysis of five decades data from the National Disease Surveillance. BMC Res. Notes 2019, 12, 350. [CrossRef] 11. Stephenson, J.R. The problem with dengue. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2005, 99, 643–646. [CrossRef] 12. World Health Organization. Dengue: Guidelines for Diagnosis, Treatment, Prevention, and Control; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. 13. Gunasekara, T.D.C.P.; Velathanthiri, V.G.N.S.; Weerasekara, M.M.; Fernando, S.S.N.; Peelawattage, M.; Guruge, D.; Fernando, S. Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Regarding Dengue Fever in a Suburban Community in Sri Lanka. 2015. Available online: http://www.dr.lib.sjp.ac.lk/handle/123456789/1852 (accessed on 20 December 2021). 14. Al-Dubai, S.A.; Ganasegeran, K.; Mohanad Rahman, A.; Alshagga, M.A.; Saif-Ali, R. Factors affecting dengue fever knowledge, attitudes and practices among selected urban, semi-urban and rural communities in Malaysia. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 2013, 44, 37–49. [PubMed] 15. Mathur, D.; Patel, M.; Vyas, P.; Kaushal, R.; Dash, G.C.; Goel, A.D.; Bhardwaj, P.; Gupta, M.K.; Joshi, N.K. Revitalising community engagement and surveillance challenges for strengthening dengue control in Jodhpur, Western Rajasthan, India—A mixed method study. J. Infect. Public Health 2020, 13, 1755–1761. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 16. Wong, L.P.; AbuBakar, S. Health beliefs and practices related to dengue fever: A focus group study. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2013, 7, e2310. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 13 of 13 17. Causa, R.; Ochoa-Díaz-López, H.; Dor, A.; Rodríguez-León, F.; Solís-Hernández, R.; Pacheco-Soriano, A.L. Emerging arboviruses (dengue, chikungunya, and Zika) in Southeastern Mexico: Influence of socio-environmental determinants on knowledge and practices. Cad. Saude Publica 2020, 36, e00110519. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 18. Toan, D.T.T.; Kien, V.D.; Giang, K.B.; Minh, H.V.; Wright, P. Perceptions of climate change and its impact on human health: An integrated quantitative and qualitative approach. Glob. Health Action 2014, 7, 23025. [CrossRef] 19. Podder, D.; Paul, B.; Dasgupta, A.; Bandyopadhyay, L.; Pal, A.; Roy, S. Community perception and risk reduction practices toward malaria and dengue: A mixed-method study in slums of Chetla, Kolkata. Indian J. Public Health 2019, 63, 178–185. [CrossRef] 20. Colón-González, F.J.; Lake, I.R.; Bentham, G. Climate variability and dengue fever in warm and humid Mexico. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2011, 84, 757–763. [CrossRef] 21. Sullivan, G.M.; Feinn, R. Using Effect Size-or Why the P Value Is Not Enough. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2012, 4, 279–282. [CrossRef] 22. Boussiala, M. Cook’s Distance. 2020. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344522968_Cook%27s_ Distance (accessed on 20 December 2021). 23. Aerts, C.; Revilla, M.; Duval, L.; Paaijmans, K.; Chandrabose, J.; Cox, H.; Sicuri, E. Understanding the role of disease knowledge and risk perception in shaping preventive behavior for selected vector-borne diseases in Guyana. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2020, 14, e0008149. [CrossRef] 24. Sheeran, P.; Maki, A.; Montanaro, E.; Avishai-Yitshak, A.; Bryan, A.; Klein, W.M.; Miles, E.; Rothman, A.J. The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2016, 35, 1178–1188. [CrossRef] 25. Barrett, C.; Cheung, K.L. Knowledge, socio-cognitive perceptions and the practice of hand hygiene and social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study of UK university students. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 426. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 26. Palomino Gonzalez, R.; Kadengye, T.; Mayega, R.W. The knowledge-risk-behaviour continuum among young Ugandans: What it tells us about SRH/HIV integration. BMC Public Health 2019, 19 (Suppl. 1), 604. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 27. Koschollek, C.; Kuehne, A.; Müllerschön, J.; Amoah, S.; Batemona-Abeke, H.; Dela Bursi, T.; Mayamba, P.; Thorlie, A.; Mputu Tshibadi, C.; Wangare Greiner, V.; et al. Knowledge, information needs and behavior regarding HIV and sexually transmitted infections among migrants from sub-Saharan Africa living in Germany: Results of a participatory health research survey. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0227178. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 28. Imai, H.; Furukawa, T.A.; Hayashi, S.U.; Goto, A.; Izumi, K.; Hayashino, Y.; Noda, M.; J-DOIT2 Study Group. Risk perception, self-efficacy, trust for physician, depression, and behavior modification in diabetic patients. J. Health Psychol. 2020, 25, 350–360. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 29. Rigau-Pérez, J.G.; Puerto Rico Association of Epidemiologists. Clinical manifestations of dengue hemorrhagic fever in Puerto Rico, 1990–1991. Rev. Panam. Salud Publica 1997, 1, 381–388. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 30. Liu-Helmersson, J.; Stenlund, H.; Wilder-Smith, A.; Rocklöv, J. Vectorial capacity of Aedes aegypti: Effects of temperature and implications for global dengue epidemic potential. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e89783. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 31. Rocklöv, J.; Quam, M.B.; Sudre, B.; German, M.; Kraemer, M.U.; Brady, O.; Bogoch, I.I.; Liu-Helmersson, J.; Wilder-Smith, A.; Semenza, J.C.; et al. Assessing Seasonal Risks for the Introduction and Mosquito-borne Spread of Zika Virus in Europe. EBioMedicine 2016, 9, 250–256. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 32. Gurman, T.; Ballard Sara, A.; Villanueva Lorenzo, F.; Luis, D.; Hunter, G.; Maloney, S.; Fujita-Conrads, R.; Leontsini, E. The role of gender in Zika prevention behaviors in the Dominican Republic: Findings and programmatic implications from a qualitative study. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2020, 14, e0007994. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 33. Apinjoh, T.O.; Anchang-Kimbi, J.K.; Mugri, R.N.; Tangoh, D.A.; Nyingchu, R.V.; Chi, H.F.; Tata, R.B.; Njumkeng, C.; Njua-Yafi, C.; Achidi, E.A. The effect of Insecticide Treated Nets (ITNs) on Plasmodium falciparum infection in rural and semi-urban communities in the south west region of Cameroon. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0116300. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 34. Dormann, C.; Duda, K.; Hamainza, B.; Yewhalaw, D.; Hemingway, C.; Coleman, M.; Coleman, M.; Thomsen, E. Evaluation of a game-based training course to build capacity for insecticide resistance management in vector control programmes. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0240514. [CrossRef] 35. Asingizwe, D.; Poortvliet, P.M.; van Vliet, A.J.; Koenraadt, C.J.; Ingabire, C.M.; Mutesa, L.; Leeuwis, C. What do people benefit from a citizen science programme? Evidence from a Rwandan citizen science programme on malaria control. Malar. J. 2020, 19, 283. [PubMed] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Behavioral Sciences Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Determining Perceived Self-Efficacy for Preventing Dengue Fever in Two Climatically Diverse Mexican States: A Cross-Sectional Study

Download PDF
13 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/determining-perceived-self-efficacy-for-preventing-dengue-fever-in-two-0YO9um0FSd

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright
© 1996-2022 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN
2076-328X
DOI
10.3390/bs12040094
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

behavioral sciences Article Determining Perceived Self-Efficacy for Preventing Dengue Fever in Two Climatically Diverse Mexican States: A Cross-Sectional Study 1 , 2 3 , 4 5 Esther Annan *, Aracely Angulo-Molina , Wan Fairos Wan Yaacob , Nolan Kline , 6 1 Uriel A. Lopez-Lemus and Ubydul Haque Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA; mdubydul.haque@unthsc.edu Department of Chemical and Biological Sciences/DIFUS, University of Sonora, Hermosillo 83000, Mexico; aracely.angulo@unison.mx Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan Kelantan, Kampus Kota Bharu, Lembah Sireh, Kota Bharu 40450, Kelantan, Malaysia; wnfairos@uitm.edu.my Institute for Big Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence (IBDAAI), Kompleks Al-Khawarizmi, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam 40450, Selangor, Malaysia Department of Health Behavior and Health Systems, School of Public Health, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA; nolan.kline@unthsc.edu Department of Health Sciences, Center for Biodefense and Global Infectious Diseases, Colima 28078, Mexico; ulemus@cebgid.org * Correspondence: esther.annan@my.unthsc.edu Abstract: Knowledge of dengue fever and perceived self-efficacy toward dengue prevention does not necessarily translate to the uptake of mosquito control measures. Understanding how these factors Citation: Annan, E.; Angulo-Molina, (knowledge and self-efficacy) influence mosquito control measures in Mexico is limited. Our study A.; Yaacob, W.F.W.; Kline, N.; sought to bridge this knowledge gap by assessing individual-level variables that affect the use of Lopez-Lemus, U.A.; Haque, U. mosquito control measures. A cross-sectional survey with 623 participants was administered online Determining Perceived Self-Efficacy in Mexico from April to July 2021. Multiple linear regression and multiple logistic regression models for Preventing Dengue Fever in Two were used to explore factors that predicted mosquito control scale and odds of taking measures to Climatically Diverse Mexican States: control mosquitoes in the previous year, respectively. Self-efficacy ( = 0.323, p-value = < 0.0001) and A Cross-Sectional Study. Behav. Sci. knowledge about dengue reduction scale ( = 0.316, p-value =< 0.0001) were the most important 2022, 12, 94. https://doi.org/ predictors of mosquito control scale. The linear regression model explained 24.9% of the mosquito 10.3390/bs12040094 control scale variance. Increasing age (OR = 1.064, p-value =< 0.0001) and self-efficacy (OR = 1.020, Academic Editors: Joseph Ciorciari p-value = 0.0024) were both associated with an increase in the odds of taking measures against and Scott D. Lane mosquitoes in the previous year. There is a potential to increase mosquito control awareness and Received: 20 December 2021 practices through the increase in knowledge about mosquito reduction and self-efficacy in Mexico. Accepted: 23 March 2022 Published: 28 March 2022 Keywords: knowledge; self-efficacy; dengue fever; prevention; mosquito control; Mexico; Sonora; Colima Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affil- 1. Introduction iations. Dengue Fever (DF) is caused by the most common arthropod-borne virus world- wide [1] and is transmitted through the bite of female Aedes spp. mosquitoes [2]. In Mexico, the transmission of DF occurs in 29 of 32 states [3], contributing to a cost of about Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. $257 million each year [4,5]. DF results in longer waiting times in hospitals and increased Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. financial burden, especially for people from low-income households [6]. Factors enhancing This article is an open access article the distribution and spread of DF include vector dynamics such as the abundance of fe- distributed under the terms and male Aedes spp., host preference, number of bites, environmental size, and the number of conditions of the Creative Commons humans exposed to that environment [7]. Well-established preventive measures include Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// using insecticide-treated curtains (ITCs) [8] and increasing individual knowledge about DF, creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ how it spreads, and how to prevent it [9]. 4.0/). Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12040094 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 2 of 13 Effectively managing DF involves early detection and improved treatment, which helps reduce the dengue case fatality rate [10–12]. Interventions such as vaccination may prevent DF, but a more comprehensive public health intervention targets the source of the disease-causing organism. To achieve this, it is important to assess individuals’ willingness to engage in prevention efforts and determine factors that may affect their willingness and perceived ability to execute preventive measures. Prior studies demon- strated the relationship between knowledge, beliefs, and practices toward the prevention of DF [9,13,14]. While attitudes toward DF have been previously explored in areas such as Malaysia and Sri Lanka [13,14] self-efficacy, which directly influences health-seeking behav- iors or adopting health behaviors, has not been explored in Mexico. Similarly, to the best of our knowledge, the association between these attitudes, self-efficacy, and a person’s history of practicing mosquito control measures has not been explored in Mexico. Moreover, while a person might be knowledgeable or self-efficacious, this might not directly affect his/her treatment and health-seeking behavior. Despite well-known information on the spread and prevention of DF, there remains a knowledge gap about how dengue is transmitted. In parts of Sonora, Mexico, people infected with DF may be stigmatized because of beliefs that DF occurs due to person- to-person transmission [9]. Such beliefs may hamper DF prevention [9]. Furthermore, although people may know about DF generally, specific information such as DF symptoms, dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF), and dengue shock syndrome (DSS) may remain un- known [15,16]. Additionally, awareness of DF transmission [9,17] and/or its relationship to factors such as climate change [18], does not guarantee adequate knowledge about domes- tic protection against mosquito bites nor positive attitudes toward DF prevention [15,19]. Multiple factors may shape an individual’s choices to engage in prevention practices, such as education level, age, and perceived susceptibility to DF [16,17]. In Mexico, DF research has mostly focused on warmer states in the southern re- gions [9,20]. However, up until 2014, cities in the north along the US Mexican border had not experienced local transmission [9]. Due to the limitation of studies in the north compared to the south of Mexico and the climatic diversity between the two regions, we hypothesized that knowledge and self-efficacy toward dengue prevention and its associa- tion with mosquito control would vary across regions in Mexico. Northern states such as Sonora on the US–Mexico border have recently reported an increasing number of dengue cases and deaths [9]. This study compared dengue awareness between geographically different regions (mainly Colima and Sonora) in Mexico. With the vast climatic differences across Mexico, behavioral attributes may vary as well. 2. Methods 2.1. Study Design and Respondents This study used a population-based cross-sectional survey, which was distributed online across Mexico, with the majority of the targeted respondents living in Sonora and Colima. The survey was distributed to the professional, social, and personal networks of academicians in Colima and Sonora. Administration of the survey (Supplementary Materials) was made between April and July 2021 and included eight sections. The survey contained a ‘demographics’ section, while the remaining sections assessed Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices (KAP) related to mosquito control. Knowledge of DF prevention, transmission, symptoms, management, and its association with climate change was assessed. Respondents were then asked about their attitude toward education and mitigation strategies to lower the risk of DF. In the practice section, respondents were asked about household elimination methods, frequency of cleaning practices, presence of items conducive for breeding mosquitoes around one’s household, health-seeking be- havior, and self-efficacy toward dengue prevention practices. This study was reviewed by the North Texas Regional Institutional Review Board and determined to be exempt from category research. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14 and self-efficacy toward dengue prevention practices. This study was reviewed by the Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 3 of 13 North Texas Regional Institutional Review Board and determined to be exempt from cat- egory research. 2.2. Study Area 2.2. s Study Areas The study waThe s cond study ucted was in represent conducted ative urban in representati and rur ve urban al area and s in mainly rural areas Sonora in mainly Sonora and Colima Stand ate, Mexico Colima (State, Figure Mexico 1). These are (Figur ae s are e 1). These xpected to vary in their c areas are expectedlimate vul- to vary in their climate nerability, advulnerability aptive capaci ,tadaptive y, geogra capacity phical and eco , geographical logical d and iveecological rsity, and p diversity overty. The , and poverty. The study areas ha study ve a dar ivers eas if have ied cl aimat diversified e with a climat dry se eas with on from a dry Oct season ober t fr o om Apri October l and a to raApril iny and a rainy season, with high rainfall, high humidity, and high temperatures from May to September season, with high rainfall, high humidity, and high temperatures from May to September in Colima. In contrast, rainfall is scarce between June and September in Sonora. in Colima. In contrast, rainfall is scarce between June and September in Sonora. Figure 1. Map of Mexico showing locations of Colima and Sonora. 2.3. Instruments Figure 1. Map of Mexico showing locations of Colima and Sonora. A questionnaire was developed based on seven constructs and translated into Spanish. The seven sections were i. Socio-Demographics, which included information about age, sex, 2.3. Instruments duration of living in an area, the area of residence (classified either urban or rural), kind A questionnaire was developed based on seven constructs and translated into Span- of residence (this included options such as single-family homes, duplex, etc.), the state of ish. The seven sect residence, ions w and ere the i. Soc number io-Deof mographic people living s, which in an incl individual’s uded inform home, ation abo ii. ‘Knowledge ut about age, sex, duradengue tion of liv fever ing’, in an which arincl ea, uded the arquestions ea of residence about transmission, (classified either symptoms, urban oand r ru-ways to access healthcare, iii. The ‘knowledge about climate change’ focused on whether individuals ral), kind of residence (this included options such as single-family homes, duplex, etc.), the state of rper esidenc ceived e, ther and the number of pe e was a knowledge gap ople l about iving climate in an change individ anu daits l’s h association ome, ii. with dengue fever, iv. Attitudes about climate change and dengue fever, v. The ‘practices related ‘Knowledge about dengue fever’, which included questions about transmission, symp- to dengue fever ’ section contains questions about interventions taken by individuals toms, and ways to access healthcare, iii. The ‘knowledge about climate change’ focused to reduce mosquito breeding, vi. The ‘treatment-seeking approach and health-seeking on whether individuals perceived there was a knowledge gap about climate change and behavior ’ section assessed an individual’s access to healthcare, vii. The ‘level of self- its association with dengue fever, iv. Attitudes about climate change and dengue fever, v. efficacy towards dengue prevention practices at the individual, household level, and The ‘practices related to dengue fever’ section contains questions about interventions community level’ section focuses on individuals’ perception of their ability to carry out taken by individuals to reduce mosquito breeding, vi. The ‘treatment-seeking approach mosquito control measures. and health-seeking behavior’ section assessed an individual’s access to healthcare, vii. The ‘level of self-efficacy towards dengue prevention practices at the individual, household 2.4. Data Collection and Preprocessing level, and community level’ section focuses on individuals’ perception of their ability to All study participants were given online consent forms which assured them of the carry out mosquito control measures. confidentiality of the survey. After the forms were completed, they were sent the survey link to be completed online. The collected data were translated from Spanish into English for analysis. Content and construct validation were performed during pilot testing before the data collection. Variables were renamed in Microsoft Excel and exported into SAS (version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) for data cleaning. Using G*Power 3.1.9.4, Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 4 of 13 we determined that when performing a two-tailed hypothesis test for our regression model with an alpha of 0.05 and 3 to 5 predictors, a sample size of at least 262 was needed to determine an effect size as small as 0.02 [21]. The final sample comprised 622 respondents. This study was performed according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guidelines 2.5. Scoring Metrics Metric scores and scales were created for knowledge about how dengue fever is transmitted (1–3), how to reduce dengue transmission (0–8), symptoms associated with dengue fever (0–9), climatic factors that affect dengue transmission (0–6), measures taken by respondents in the previous year to control mosquitoes (1–14), presence of items in respondent’s yard (0–8), the frequency of using the measure to control adult mosquitoes (0–5), and level of self-efficacy toward dengue prevention practices (14–140). 2.6. Analysis Means were calculated for the score metrics and a confidence limit was derived for each. A chi-squared test was run to determine whether there were significant differences between dengue and climatic-related matrixes for different demographic variables. The alpha level was set to 0.05. A Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) was performed to describe the relationship between knowledge, self-efficacy, and adult mosquito control. A final model was chosen to explore predictors of mosquito control measures, after satisfying the independence assumption (Durbin-Watson statistic = 1.934), ensuring normality (Shapiro– Wilk statistic = 0.987, p-value = 0.1060) and removal of influential points based on the formula CooksD > 4/n [22]. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was then used to determine variables associated with the odds of taking measures against mosquitoes in the previous year. Gender, age, and self-efficacy were fitted into the multivariate logistic models. The effect of each variable was analyzed, and the resulting models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. 3. Results More than half of the participants in this study were female (65.92%) and the average age of respondents was 35 years. Overall, the differences in age across states was statistically significant ((F ) = 3.72, p = 0.0249). However, pairwise comparisons showed that this (2, 618 difference was only significant for the contrast between Colima and other states. A large proportion of the sample lived in Sonora (64.47%), followed by Colima (21.22%) and other Mexican states comprised 14.31%. An individual’s history of taking measures to eliminate mosquitoes within the last year varied statistically by the duration of stay in Sonora and Other states (Table 1). In Sonora, an individual’s history of taking mosquito elimination measures varied by age ((F ) = 17.17, p < 0.0001). This variance was not seen in Colima (2, 397 and other states. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 5 of 13 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14 Table 1. Demographic Characteristics by people who took measures to eliminate mosquitoes in their Table 1. Demographic Characteristics by people who took measures to eliminate mosquitoes in their households in the past year. households in the past year. Measures to Eliminate Mosquito (n (%)) Measures to Eliminate Mosquito (n (%)) States Took Did Not Take States Not Sur Did e Not Take p-Value Measures Me Took asur Measures es Not Sure p-Value Measures Age (years) 37.3 ± 11.7 37.4 ± 14.8 27 ± 4.0 Age (years) 37.3  11.7 37.4  14.8 27  4.0 Male 46 (86.79%) 6 (11.32%) 1 (1.89%) Gender 0.2095 Male 46 (86.79%) 6 (11.32%) 1 (1.89%) Female 73 (92.41%) 3 (3.80%) 3 (3.80%) 0.2095 Gender Female 73 (92.41%) 3 (3.80%) 3 (3.80%) Rural 6 (100%) 0 (%) 0 (%) b Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14 Residence Area 0.7094 Rural 6 (100%) 0 (%) 0 (%) Urban 113 (89.68%) 9 (7.14%) 4 (3.17%) 0.7094 Residence Area Urban 113 (89.68%) 9 (7.14%) 4 (3.17%) Colima 3 years or less 22 (88.00%) 1 (4.00%) 2 (8.00%) Colima Duration of stay 3 years or less 22 (88.00%) 1 (4.00%) 0.2359 2 (8.00%) Above 3 years 97 (90.65%) 8 (7.48%) 2 (1.87%) Table 1. Demographic Characteristics by people who took measures to eliminate mosquitoes in their Duration of stay 0.2359 Above 3 years 97 (90.65%) 8 (7.48%) 2 (1.87%) households in the past year. Single-family home 84 (89.36%) 7 (7.45%) 3 (3.19%) b Single-family home 84 (89.36%) 7 (7.45%) 3 (3.19%) Kind of Home 0.8870 0.8870 Measures to Eliminate Mosquito (n (%)) Kind of Home *Others 35 (92.11%) 2 (5.26%) 1 (2.63%) *Others 35 (92.11%) 2 (5.26%) 1 (2.63%) States Took Did Not Take Number in Less than 3 27 (87.10%) 3 (9.68%) 1 (3.23%) Less than 3 27 (87.10%) 3 (9.68%) 1 (3.23%) Number in Not Sure p-Value 0.8893 0.8893 Measures Measures Household 3 or more 374 or (mor 90.24% e ) 6 (7 74 .32%) (90.24%) 2 (2.44%) 6 (7.32%) 2 (2.44%) Household Age (years) 37.3 ± 11.7 37.4 ± 14.8 27 ± 4.0 Age (years) 37.1 ± 13.0 26.7 ± 8.6 29.7 ± 12.3 Age (years) 37.1  13.0 26.7  8.6 29.7  12.3 Male 46 (86.79%) 6 (11.32%) 1 (1.89%) Gender 0.2095 Male 104 (80.62%) 17 (13.18%) 8 (6.20%) Female 73 (92.41%) 3 (3.80%) 3 (3.80%) Gender 0.8633 Male 104 (80.62%) 17 (13.18%) 8 (6.20%) b Rural 6 (100%) 0 (%) 0 (%) Female 225 (82.72%) 31 (11.40%) 16 (5.88%) 0.8633 Gender Residence Area 0.7094 Female 225 (82.72%) 31 (11.40%) 16 (5.88%) Urban 113 (89.68%) 9 (7.14%) 4 (3.17%) Rural 32 (78.05%) 6 (14.63%) 3 (7.32%) Rural 32 (78.05%) 6 (14.63%) 3 (7.32%) Residence Area 0.7807 Colima 3 years or less 22 (88.00%) 1 (4.00%) 2 (8.00%) b 0.7807 Residence Area Urban 297 (82.50%) 42 (11.67%) 21 (5.83%) Duration of stay 0.2359 Urban 297 (82.50%) 42 (11.67%) 21 (5.83%) Above 3 years 97 (90.65%) 8 (7.48%) 2 (1.87%) Sonora Sonora 3 years or less 32 (69.57%) 9 (19.57%) 5 (10.87%) 3 years or less 32 (69.57%) 9 (19.57%) 5 (10.87%) b Single-family home 84 (89.36%) 7 (7.45%) 3 (3.19%) Duration of stay 0.0620 b Duration of stay Kind of Home 0.0620 0.8870 Above 3 years 297 (83.66%) 39 (10.99%) 19 (5.35%) Above 3 years 297 (83.66%) 39 (10.99%) 19 (5.35%) *Others 35 (92.11%) 2 (5.26%) 1 (2.63%) Single-family home 254 (83.83%) 31 (10.23%) 18 (5.94%) Number in Less than 3 27 (87.10%) 3 (9.68%) 1 (3.23%) Single-family home 254 (83.83%) 31 (10.23%) 18 (5.94%) b b 0.8893 Kind of Home 0.1639 0.1639 Kind of Home b Household 3 or more 74 (90.24%) 6 (7.32%) 2 (2.44%) *Others 75 (76.53%) 17 (17.35%) 6 (6.12%) *Others 75 (76.53%) 17 (17.35%) 6 (6.12%) Age (years) 37.1 ± 13.0 26.7 ± 8.6 29.7 ± 12.3 Less than 3 61 (81.33%) 10 (13.33%) 4 (5.33%) Number in Number in Less than 3 61 (81.33%) 10 (13.33%) 4 (5.33%) 0.9851 b 0.9851 Male 104 (80.62%) 17 (13.18%) 8 (6.20%) 3 or more 170 (82.13%) 11 (5.31%) 26 (12.56%) Household b Gender 0.8633 Household 3 or more 170 (82.13%) 11 (5.31%) 26 (12.56%) Female 225 (82.72%) 31 (11.40%) 16 (5.88%) Age (years) 33.2  10.6 29.0  11.6 24.0  2.8 Age (years) 33.2± 10.6 29.0 ± 11.6 24.0 ± 2.8 Rural 32 (78.05%) 6 (14.63%) 3 (7.32%) Residence Area 0.7807 Urban 297 (82.50%) 42 (11.67%) 21 (5.83%) Male 26 (86.67%) 2 (6.67%) 2 (6.67%) 0.0509 Male 26 (86.67%) 2 (6.67%) 2 (6.67%) 0.0509 Gender Sonora Gender 3 years or less 32 (69.57%) 9 (19.57%) 5 (10.87%) Female 48 (81.36%) 11 (18.64%) - b Female 48 (81.36%) 11 (18.64%) - Duration of stay 0.0620 Above 3 years 297 (83.66%) 39 (10.99%) 19 (5.35%) Rural 5 Rural (83.33%) 1 (16 5.67 (83.33%) %) 0 (0.00% 1) (16.67%) 0.9216 0 (0.00%) 0.9216 Single-family home 254 (83.83%) 31 (10.23%) 18 (5.94%) Residence Area Residence Area Kind of Home 0.1639 Urban 69 (83.13%) 12 (14.46%) 2 (2.41%) Urban 69 (83.13%) 12 (14.46%) 2 (2.41%) *Others 75 (76.53%) 17 (17.35%) 6 (6.12%) ꭞOther States 3 years or less 8 (57.14%) 4 (28.57%) 2 (14.29%) 0.0008 3 years or less 8 (57.14%) 4 (28.57%) 2 (14.29%) 0.0008 b Number in Less than 3 61 (81.33%) 10 (13.33%) 4 (5.33%) Duration b of stay States Duration of stay 0.9851 Above 3 years 66 (88.00%) 9 (12.00%) 0 (0%) b Household 3 or more 170 (82.13%) 11 (5.31%) 26 (12.56%) Above 3 years 66 (88.00%) 9 (12.00%) 0 (0%) Single-family home 44 (84.62%) 8 (15.38%) 0 (0%) 0.2351 a Age (years) 33.2± 10.6 29.0 ± 11.6 24.0 ± 2.8 Single-fa bmily home 44 (84.62%) 8 (15.38%) 0 (0%) 0.2351 Kind of Home Kind of Home *Others 30 (81.08%) 5 (13.51%) 2 (5.41%) Male 26 (86.67%) 2 (6.67%) 2 (6.67%) 0.0509 *Others 30 (81.08%) 5 (13.51%) 2 (5.41%) Gender Less than 3 19 (82.61%) 3 (13.04%) 1 (4.35%) Female 48 (81.36%) 11 (18.64%) - Number in 0.9078 Number in Less than 3 19 (82.61%) 3 (13.04%) 1 (4.35%) Rural 5 (83.33%) 1 (16.67%) 0 (0.00%) 0.9216 Household 3 or more 35 (85.37%) 5 (12.20%) 1 (2.44%) 0.9078 Residence Area Household 3 or more 35 (85.37%) 5 (12.20%) 1 (2.44%) Urban 69 (83.13%) 12 (14.46%) 2 (2.41%) *Others includes structures such as Terrace, Duplex and Condominium. ꭞOther states include states such as *Others includes structures such as Terrace, Duplex and Condominium. ꭞOther states include 3 years or less 8 (57.14%) 4 (28.57%) 2 (14.29%) 0.0008 Morelos, Nuevo Leon, Baja California, Chiapas, Ciudad de Mexico, Durango, Jalisco, Queretaro, Puebla, San Luis States Duration of stay states such as Morelos, Nuevo Leon, Baja California, Chiapas, Ciudad de Mexico, Durango, Jalisco, Above 3 years 66 (88.00%) 9 (12.00%) 0 (0%) a b Potosi, Guerrero and Zacatecas. : Values were expressed as mean  SD : Values were expressed as n (%). Queretaro, Puebla, San Luis Potosi, Guerrero and Zacatecas. : Values were expressed as mean Single-family home 44 (84.62%) 8 (15.38%) 0 (0%) 0.2351 Kind of Home *Others 30 (81.08%) 5 (13.51%) 2 (5.41%) ± SD : Values were expressed as n (%). 3.1. Knowledge about Factors Associated with DF Number in Less than 3 19 (82.61%) 3 (13.04%) 1 (4.35%) 0.9078 Household 3 or more 35 (85.37%) 5 (12.20%) 1 (2.44%) 3.1. Knowl Kneo dg we about ledge Fac scorte ors s f Asso or DF ciate trad n s with DF mission (Tables S1 and S2.2), symptoms (Tables S2.1 and S2.4), *Others includes structures such as Terrace, Duplex and Condominium. ꭞOther states include and climatic factors associated with DF (Table S2.5) were higher for males. Although knowledge of Knowledge scores for DF transmission (Tables S1 and S2.2), symptoms (Tables S2.1 states such as Morelos, Nuevo Leon, Baja California, Chiapas, Ciudad de Mexico, Durango, Jalisco, Queretaro, Puebla, San Luis Potosi, Guerrero and Zacatecas. : Values were expressed as mean and DF S2 re .4 d ), uan ctid clim on waat s h ic ig fa hce tr ors as in msoci alesat fo er dt wit he t h o DF tal p (T oab pu le lat Si2 o.n 5) w (Tae b rle e highe S2.3 a rn for d F m iga u le re s. SAlt- 1a) and Sonora ± SD : Values were expressed as n (%). hough kn (Table Sowl 3), ie n dge o Colim f DF a, re fem duct ales ion w hada m s higher ore kno in m wlea dlg ee s fo (Tr t ab h le e t S o 3t)a . l popu In botlat h S io on n ( oT ra able and S2 C .3 o lima, males and Figure S1a) and Sonora (Table S3), in Colima, females had more knowledge (Table had higher knowledge scores as regards the effect of climatic factors on dengue transmission than 3.1. Knowledge about Factors Associated with DF S3). In both Sonora and Colima, males had higher knowledge scores as regards the effect females (Table 2). This difference was statistically significant in Sonora. Males also had higKnowledge her scores for DF transmission (Tables S1 and S2.2), symptoms (Tables S2.1 of climatic factors on dengue transmission than females (Table 2). This difference was sta- and S2.4), and climatic factors associated with DF (Table S2.5) were higher for males. Alt- scores for the presence of items in their yards (Table 2 and Figure S2a). Females had higher scores hough knowledge of DF reduction was higher in males for the total population (Table S2.3 tistically significant in Sonora. Males also had higher scores for the presence of items in for measures taken to control mosquitoes in the previous year (Table 2) and a higher frequency of and Figure S1a) and Sonora (Table S3), in Colima, females had more knowledge (Table using measures to control adult mosquitoes (Table 2). Contrary to Sonora and Colima, in other S3). In both Sonora and Colima, males had higher knowledge scores as regards the effect of climatic factors on dengue transmission than females (Table 2). This difference was sta- states, females had higher knowledge scores and scored higher in taking measures to prevent tistically significant in Sonora. Males also had higher scores for the presence of items in mosquitoes in the previous year, while males had higher scores presence of items in the yard and a higher frequency of using measures to control mosquitoes (Table 2). Compared to Sonora residents, people living in Colima had higher scores for knowledge about how to reduce dengue Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 6 of 13 transmission and dengue symptoms (Tables S2.3 and S2.4). Furthermore, unlike Sonora, in Colima and other states, people living in urban areas had higher knowledge scores compared to those in rural areas (Table 2). The group comparison was statistically significant in other states. For all states, urban areas had higher scores for measures taken to control mosquitoes and lower scores for the presence of items in the respondent’s yard. However, while rural areas in Sonora and other states scored lower for the frequency of using measures to control adult mosquitoes, rural areas in Colima scored higher (Table 2). Across states, there was a statistically significant difference between states for being diagnosed (Figure S3c) or having a neighbor diagnosed with DF in the past year (Table 3). The difference in having healthcare providers was significant between residence areas (Table 3). Table 2. Knowledge about factors associated with mosquito transmission, prevention, and control for different socio-economic parameters. Knowledge Measures Taken Frequency of Presence of about Climatic by Respondents Using Items in State Factors Affecting in the Previous Measures to Variable Respondent’s Dengue Year to Control Control Adult Yard Transmission Mosquitoes Mosquitoes 2.34 (1.29) 9.88 (1.62) 1.85 (1.29) 1.62 (1.21) Male Gender (1.99, 2.69) (9.21, 10.55) (1.49, 2.21) (1.29, 1.96) 2.06 (1.54) 10.36 (2.00) 1.79 (1.42) 1.72 (1.47) Female (1.72, 2.40) (9.58, 11.13) (1.46, 2.13) (1.39, 2.05) T-test p-value 0.2827 0.3482 0.8358 0.6853 2.08 (1.44) 10.00 (2.06) 2.58 (1.08) 1.75 (1.86) Rural Residence (1.16, 3.00) (8.42, 11.58) (1.89, 3.27) (0.57, 2.93) Colima Area 2.18 (1.45) 10.13 (1.80) 1.73 (1.37) 1.68 (1.32) Urban (1.92, 2.45) (9.60, 10.70) (1.48, 1.99) (1.44, 1.91) T-test p-value 0.8200 0.8148 0.0399 0.8570 Single-family 2.20 (1.42) 10.12 (1.45) 1.82 (1.43) 1.50 (1.25) home (1.91, 2.49) (9.6, 10.62) (1.52, 2.11) (1.24, 1.76) Kind of Home 2.11 (1.52) 10.16 (2.41) 1.82 (1.19) 2.13 (1.55) *Others (1.61, 2.61) (9.00, 11.32) (1.41, 2.24) (1.62, 2.64) T-test p-value 0.7285 0.9476 0.9701 0.0156 2.47 (1.56) 9.41 (2.33) 2.60 (1.67) 1.78 (1.52) Male (2.20, 2.74) (8.72, 10.11) (2.29, 2.90) (1.51, 2.04) Gender 2.02 (1.44) 9.66 (2.32) 2.40 (1.44) 1.90 (1.55) Female (1.85, 2.19) (9.17, 10.16) (2.22, 2.58) (1.72, 2.09) T-test p-value 0.0049 0.5574 0.2538 0.4463 2.23 (1.43) 8.81 (3.06) 2.53 (1.39) 1.83 (1.51) Rural Residence (1.92, 2.55) (7.60, 10.03) (2.20, 2.84) (1.50, 2.16) Sonora Area 2.15 (1.51) 9.77 (2.06) 2.45 (1.55) 1.87 (1.55) Urban (1.98, 2.31) (9.37, 10.17) (2.27, 2.63) (1.70, 2.03) T-test p-value 0.6381 0.0555 0.6975 0.8474 Single-family 2.16 (1.47) 9.59 (2.22) 2.51 (1.49) 1.88 (1.50) home (2.00, 2.33) (9.15, 10.03) (2.33, 2.68) (1.71, 2.05) Kind of Home 2.16 (1.55) 9.53 (2.65) 2.35 (1.61) 1.81 (1.66) *Others (1.85, 2.47) (8.58, 10.49) (2.11, 2.68) (1.47, 2.14) T-test p-value 0.9896 0.9013 0.3893 0.6889 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 7 of 13 Table 2. Cont. Knowledge Measures Taken Frequency of Presence of about Climatic by Respondents Using Items in State Factors Affecting in the Previous Measures to Variable Respondent’s Dengue Year to Control Control Adult Yard Transmission Mosquitoes Mosquitoes 2.20 (1.32) 9.22 (2.39) 2.53 (1.59) 2.27 (1.39) Male (1.71, 2.69) (7.39, 11.05) (1.94, 3.13) (1.75, 2.78) Gender 2.41 (1.39) 9.87 (2.00) 2.09 (1.37) 2.20 (1.57) Female (2.04, 2.77) (8.76, 10.97) (1.72, 2.45) (1.79, 2.61) T-test p-value 0.5023 0.4838 0.1788 0.8526 1.82 (1.37) 8.20 (1.64) 2.43 (1.83) 2.05 (1.21) Rural Residence (1.21, 2.42) (6.16, 10.24) (1.59, 3.26) (1.51, 2.58) Area Other States 2.51 (1.33) 10.00 (2.11) 2.18 (1.50) 2.18 (1.55) Urban (2.18, 2.83) (8.98, 11.02) (1.92, 2.58) (1.84, 2.51) T-test p-value 0.0391 0.0918 0.5073 0.5229 Single-family 2.48 (1.39) 9.80 (2.11) 2.22 (1.61) 2.29 (1.53) home (2.09, 2.87) (8.63, 10.97) (1.76, 2.68) (1.86, 2.71) Kind of Home 2.13 (1.32) 9.33 (2.24) 2.28 (1.23) 2.14 (1.49) *Others (1.70, 2.57) (7.61, 11.05) (1.86, 2.70) (1.64, 2.63) T-test p-value 0.2411 0.6131 0.8571 0.6386 Table 3. Proportions and p-value for different Chi-Squared Test results with 95% significance. Variable DF Diagnosis in the Past Year (n (%)) Demographic Yes No Do Not Know p-Value Variable Male 19 (8.96%) 192 (90.57%) 1 (0.47%) Gender 0.5942 Female 32 (7.80%) 373 (90.98%) 5 (91.22%) Rural 2 (3.77%) 51 (96.23%) 0 (0.00%) Residence Area 0.3450 Urban 49 (8.61%) 514 (90.33%) 6 (1.05%) Colima 29 (21.97%) 103 (78.03%) 0 (0.00%) State Sonora 8 (2.00%) 388 (96.76%) 5 (1.25%) <0.0001 Other states 14 (15.73%) 74 (83.15%) 1 (1.12%) Variable Availability of HealthCare providers (n (%)) Demographic Yes No Do not know p-value Variable Male 173 (81.60%) 17 (8.02%) 22 (10.38%) Gender 0.2602 Female 322 (78.54%) 27 (6.59%) 61 (14.88%) Rural 32 (60.38%) 10 (18.87%) 11 (20.75%) Residence Area 0.0003 Urban 463 (81.37%) 34 (5.98%) 72 (12.65%) Colima 101 (76.52%) 7 (5.30%) 24 (18.18%) State Sonora 322 (80.30%) 29 (7.23%) 50 (12.47%) 0.3421 Other states 72 (76.52%) 8 (8.99%) 9 (10.11%) Variable Any neighbor diagnosed with DF (n (%)) Demographic Yes No Do not know p-value Variable Male 24 (11.32%) 86 (40.57%) 102 (48.11%) Gender 0.7485 Female 55 (13.41%) 165 (40.24%) 190 (46.34%) Rural 5 (9.43%) 28 (52.83%) 20 (37.74%) Residence Area 0.1519 Urban 74 (13.01%) 223 (39.19%) 272 (47.80%) Colima 31 (23.48%) 37 (28.03%) 64 (48.48%) State Sonora 32 (7.98%) 177 (44.14%) 192 (47.88%) <0.0001 Other states 16 (17.98%) 37 (41.57%) 36 (40.45%) Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 8 of 13 3.2. Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices Associated with Climate Change and DF People’s perceptions of the occurrence of climate change varied significantly depend- ing on their area of residence (Table S4). Similarly, there were significant variances seen by gender and state for perceived need for education programs on mitigation strategies related to climate change (Table S4). States varied in their opinion about the need for governmental action against climate change and their use of larval and adult mosquito control measures (Table S4). Compared to those living in rural areas, people living in urban areas had higher scores for taking measures to control mosquitoes in the previous year (Table S5.1 and Figure S4d) and using adult mosquito control measures (Table S5.3). Urban dwellers had lower scores for the presence of items in their yard (Table S5.2) 3.3. Self-Efficacy Scores Associated with the Mosquito Reduction Practices Figure 2A–C shows left skewness, indicating that the highest proportion of participants had higher self-efficacy scores. Although the minimum self-efficacy score for males was lower (14 vs. 17), their mean score was 118.54, with a median score of 124 while females had a mean score of 117.70, and a median score of 121 (Table S6). The minimum self- efficacy score for Colima was 70, while that of Sonora was 14. The mean and median scores were also higher for Colima (121 and 125, respectively), compared to Sonora (117 and 121, respectively). The mean self-efficacy score for the urban areas (118) was higher compared to rural areas (114) (Table S6). Figure 3 shows no correlation between the self-efficacy scale and the adult mosquito control scale. However, there was a weak correlation (0.22) between knowledge about the dengue reduction scale and the adult mosquito control scale. When looking at general mosquito control measures as a dependent variable in a multiple linear regression model (Table S7), for every unit increase in the self-efficacy scale, there is a 0.04 increase in the mosquito control scale, accounting for other variables. Furthermore, when controlling for other variables, for every unit increase in the yard items scale, the mosquito control measure scale decreased by 0.21 units. After controlling for other factors, a one-unit increase in the knowledge about mosquito reduction scale increased the mosquito control measure scale by 0.25 units. Age was not significantly associated with the mosquito control scale (Table S7). Of the four predictors in the final multiple linear regression model (Table S7), self-efficacy had the highest standardized estimate, indicating that it was the most important predictor of mosquito control measures, followed by knowledge, then the presence of items in an individual’s yard. Table 4 and Table S8a,b show the final multiple logistic regression model of factors that are associated with the odds of taking measures against the mosquito. Gender was not significantly associated with the odds of taking measures against the mosquito. However, a yearly increase in age was associated with 6% higher odds of taking measures against the mosquito. Moreover, a one-unit increase in the self-efficacy scale was associated with 2% higher odds of taking measures against the mosquito. Table 4. The final model of factors associated with the odds of taking measures against mosquitoes. Independent Variables OR (95% CI) p-Value Gender Female 1.040 (0.603–1.792) 0.8890 Male Ref - Age 1.064 (1.036–1.092) <0.0001 Self-efficacy 1.020 (1.007–1.033) 0.0024 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 9 of 13 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14 Figure 2. (A–C) Distribution of self-efficacy by demographic factors. Figure 2. (A–C) Distribution of self-efficacy by demographic factors. Figure 2. (A–C) Distribution of self-efficacy by demographic factors. Figure 3. Pearson’s correlation of knowledge, self-efficacy, and mosquito control measure scales. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 10 of 13 4. Discussion Self-efficacy and knowledge were significant predictors of mosquito control measures. Higher scores of these predictors were associated more with Colima compared to Sonora. However, in this study, higher knowledge scores in Colima did not translate into a lower proportion of people who experienced DF in the previous year. Further exploration of these findings may require more objective measures of mosquito control in future studies and surveillance of DF to ensure cases are reported accurately across Mexico. However, to address inadequacies of mosquito control measures, programs may target ways to improve self-efficacy and knowledge barriers. Both knowledge and self-efficacy may positively influence behavioral outcomes [23,24]. However, their effectiveness may depend on factors such as time constraints, risk percep- tions, and trust [25–27]. Other studies found self-efficacy and trust to be more beneficial than the perceived risk of disease in predicting behavioral changes [28]. In our study, knowledge of DF reduction practices was weakly correlated with adult mosquito control measures (Figure 3), and this association was found to be significant in the multiple linear regression model. Similarly, a person’s self-efficacy to perform mosquito control measures was positively linked with mosquito control measures. Of the four predictors in the final multiple linear regression model (Table S8), self-efficacy had the highest standardized estimate, indicating that it was the most important predictor of mosquito control measures, followed by knowledge, then the presence of items in an individual’s yard. While people living in Colima had higher knowledge scores, DF diagnosis was highest in Colima. This unexpected negative association may be due to underreporting of DF in Sonora compared to Colima. Due to the longer presence of DF in the southern regions [9], northern states such as Sonora may be lagging on awareness and measures to take when presenting with symptoms of DF. Underreporting of these symptoms may further result in underdiagnoses [29]. Future studies may benefit from active surveillance of DF in Northern Mexico. On the contrary, the lower proportion of DF cases seen in Sonora might further explain the lower DF knowledge scores observed in Sonora. This implies that there may be a need to increase DF awareness in Sonora due to the implication of the Aedes spp. in the spread of DF in new locations and its adaptation to new environments [2]. Furthermore, as the climate changes, fluctuating temperatures lead to warmer northern states and cases increase northward [30,31], educational efforts will need to be intensified. Males in Sonora and Colima had higher knowledge scores compared to females. How- ever, neither gender nor the interaction between gender and knowledge scores was significant predictors of mosquito control practices. While higher knowledge scores were estimated for males, having items in one’s yard was also higher among males. This may be explained by women having a higher burden of household labor [32]. Hence, increased knowledge among women might reflect more preventive measures taken against mosquitoes. Higher frequencies of mosquito control measures in urban regions (Tables S5.1 and S5.3) were a consistent finding with prior studies which have shown higher adoption of mosquito control practices in semi-urban regions compared to rural regions [33]. Like its effect on mosquito control measures, increased self-efficacy was associated with increased odds of using control measures within the past year. Similarly, older age was also associated with higher odds of taking measures. This can be explained by the perceived low risk of DF among younger adult populations [16]. Compared to Colima, the age disparity between those who took mosquito control measures and those who did not is higher in Sonora; individuals who took measures against mosquitoes in the previous year were on average aged 37 in both Sonora and Colima. However, the mean ages for those who did not take measures in Colima and Sonora were 37 and 26, respectively. A further focus on this age disparity in Sonora may be warranted. This study has some limitations. Notably, the survey was administered to a conve- nience sample by professional, social, and personal networks of academicians in Colima and Sonora. As a characteristic of convenient sampling techniques, the sampling frame was restrictive, with small sample size, limiting the generalizability of results to other Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 11 of 13 populations. Overall, there were 32 extreme outliers identified when running the multiple linear regression model. However, these were excluded to prevent any source of bias in the estimates. Furthermore, based on our sample size calculation, our sample was large enough to significantly detect small effects on the linear scale. Due to the cross- sectional nature of the study, temporality may not be established, and causality may not be inferred from the estimates. Future research may focus on programs that improve the knowledge and self-efficacy of individuals living in both Sonora and Colima. While knowledge scores were higher in Colima, a higher proportion of people diagnosed with DF indicates that there is still a need for mosquito control programs. Such efforts can include using game-based training courses used in insecticide resistance management [34]. Courses may be modified using citizen science for community-specific impact, which has been shown to improve mosquito control programs among individuals perceived to be self-efficacious [35]. Furthermore, using mobile applications in disseminating information about mosquito control may appeal to younger adults who had lower mean scores for taking measures against mosquitoes in the previous year. 5. Conclusions This study assessed the association between knowledge about DF, self-efficacy, and the use of mosquito control measures in contrasting states such as Sonora and Colima in Mexico. It was observed that individuals in Sonora had lower scores in knowledge, as well as mosquito control outcomes compared to those in Colima. However, DF cases were higher in Colima. Age, self-efficacy, and knowledge were significantly associated with taking mosquito control measures. DF prevention interventions may focus on improving general knowledge about mosquito control measures in the female population and among younger individuals in Sonora. Future studies may use improved surveillance systems across states to mitigate potential underreporting. There should also be a focus on programs that help to improve an individual’s self-efficacy. Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https: //www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/bs12040094/s1, (Supplementary tables and figures files and questionnaire). Table S1. Knowledge about how dengue fever is transmitted (Dengue_Kn) statistics for different socio-economic parameters, by state, Table S2.1. Knowledge about symptoms associ- ated with dengue fever (DV_symp_Kn) statistics for different socio-economic parameters by state, Table S2.2. Knowledge about how dengue fever is transmitted (Dengue_Kn) statistics for differ- ent socio-economic parameters, Table S2.3. Knowledge about how to reduce dengue transmission (DV_reduc_Kn) statistics for different socio-economic parameters, Table S2.4. Knowledge about symptoms associated with dengue fever (DV_symp_Kn) statistics for different socio-economic param- eters, Table S2.5. Knowledge about climatic factors that affect dengue transmission (DV_clim_Kn) statistics for different socio-economic parameters, Table S3. Knowledge about how to reduce dengue transmission (DV_reduc_Kn) statistics for different socio-economic parameters by state, Table S4. Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice about Climate change and dengue fever, Table S5.1. Measures taken by respondents in the previous year to control mosquitoes (DV_contr_meas) statistics for dif- ferent socio-economic parameters, Table S5.2. Presence of items in respondent’s yard (Items_yard) statistics for different socio-economic parameters, Table S5.3. The frequency of using the mea- sure to control adult mosquitoes (DV_adult_cont) statistics for different socio-economic parameters, Table S6. Level of self-efficacy toward dengue prevention practices (Self_effic) statistics for different socio-economic parameters, Table S7. Univariate and multivariate multiple linear regression analysis with mosquito control measures (DV_contr_meas) as a dependent variable, Table S8a. The results of multiple logistic regression analysis on predicting the odds of taking measures against mosquitoes the previous year, Table S8b. Univariate and multivariate multiple logistic regression analysis on predicting the odds of taking measures against mosquitoes the previous year. Figure S1. Distribution of knowledge of mosquito reduction by demographic factors, Figure S2. Distribution of items in the yard by demographic factors, Figure S3. Distribution of dengue diagnosis by demographic factors, Figure S4. Distribution of mosquito control measures by demographic factors. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 12 of 13 Author Contributions: E.A.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Visualization, Prepa- ration of original draft. A.A.-M.: Data collection, questionnaire translations, Writing—review & editing. W.F.W.Y.: Methodology, Writing—review & editing. U.A.L.-L.: Data collection. N.K.: Writing—review & editing. U.H.: Conceptualization, Data Collection, Preparation of the original draft, Writing—review & editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: There was no funding for this study. U.H. was supported by the Research Council of Norway (grant # 281077). Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was approved by the “North Texas Regional Institutional Review Board”. Informed Consent Statement: Respondents were provided informed consent before the survey and were given an option to accept or decline participation in the survey. Data Availability Statement: Data will be made available based upon request through the corre- sponding author. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Martinez, J.D.; Garza, J.A.C.; Cuellar-Barboza, A. Going Viral 2019: Zika, Chikungunya, and Dengue. Dermatol. Clin. 2019, 37, 95–105. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 2. Khetarpal, N.; Khanna, I. Dengue Fever: Causes, Complications, and Vaccine Strategies. J. Immunol. Res. 2016, 2016, 6803098. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Secretaría de Salud México. Programa De Acción Específico Del Programa De Prevención Y Control De Enfermedades Trans- mitidas Por Vectores E Intoxicación Por Veneno De Artrópodos 2020–2024. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/salud/ documentos/programa-de-accion-especificao (accessed on 20 December 2021). 4. Undurraga, E.A.; Betancourt-Cravioto, M.; Ramos-Castaneda, J.; Martinez-Vega, R.; Mendez-Galvan, J.; Gubler, D.J.; Guzman, M.G.; Halstead, S.B.; Harris, E.; Kuri-Morales, P.; et al. Economic and disease burden of dengue in Mexico. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2015, 9, e0003547. [CrossRef] 5. Zubieta-Zavala, A.; López-Cervantes, M.; Salinas-Escudero, G.; Ramírez-Chávez, A.; Castañeda, J.R.; Hernández-Gaytán, S.I.; López Yescas, J.G.; Durán-Arenas, L. Economic impact of dengue in Mexico considering reported cases for 2012 to 2016. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2018, 12, e0006938. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 6. Ladner, J.; Rodrigues, M.; Davis, B.; Besson, M.H.; Audureau, E.; Saba, J. Societal impact of dengue outbreaks: Stakeholder perceptions and related implications. A qualitative study in Brazil, 2015. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e0005366. 7. Campbell, K.M.; Lin, C.D.; Iamsirithaworn, S.; Scott, T.W. The complex relationship between weather and dengue virus transmission in Thailand. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2013, 89, 1066–1080. [CrossRef] 8. Paz-Soldan, V.A.; Bauer, K.M.; Lenhart, A.; Cordova Lopez, J.J.; Elder, J.P.; Scott, T.W.; McCall, P.J.; Kochel, T.J.; Morrison, A.C. Experiences with insecticide-treated curtains: A qualitative study in Iquitos, Peru. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 582. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 9. Arellano, C.; Castro, L.; Diaz-Caravantes, R.E.; Ernst, K.C.; Hayden, M.; Reyes-Castro, P. Knowledge and Beliefs about Dengue Transmission and Their Relationship with Prevention Practices in Hermosillo, Sonora. Front Public Health 2015, 3, 142. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 10. Harapan, H.; Michie, A.; Mudatsir, M.; Sasmono, R.T.; Imrie, A. Epidemiology of dengue hemorrhagic fever in Indonesia: Analysis of five decades data from the National Disease Surveillance. BMC Res. Notes 2019, 12, 350. [CrossRef] 11. Stephenson, J.R. The problem with dengue. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2005, 99, 643–646. [CrossRef] 12. World Health Organization. Dengue: Guidelines for Diagnosis, Treatment, Prevention, and Control; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. 13. Gunasekara, T.D.C.P.; Velathanthiri, V.G.N.S.; Weerasekara, M.M.; Fernando, S.S.N.; Peelawattage, M.; Guruge, D.; Fernando, S. Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Regarding Dengue Fever in a Suburban Community in Sri Lanka. 2015. Available online: http://www.dr.lib.sjp.ac.lk/handle/123456789/1852 (accessed on 20 December 2021). 14. Al-Dubai, S.A.; Ganasegeran, K.; Mohanad Rahman, A.; Alshagga, M.A.; Saif-Ali, R. Factors affecting dengue fever knowledge, attitudes and practices among selected urban, semi-urban and rural communities in Malaysia. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 2013, 44, 37–49. [PubMed] 15. Mathur, D.; Patel, M.; Vyas, P.; Kaushal, R.; Dash, G.C.; Goel, A.D.; Bhardwaj, P.; Gupta, M.K.; Joshi, N.K. Revitalising community engagement and surveillance challenges for strengthening dengue control in Jodhpur, Western Rajasthan, India—A mixed method study. J. Infect. Public Health 2020, 13, 1755–1761. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 16. Wong, L.P.; AbuBakar, S. Health beliefs and practices related to dengue fever: A focus group study. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2013, 7, e2310. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 94 13 of 13 17. Causa, R.; Ochoa-Díaz-López, H.; Dor, A.; Rodríguez-León, F.; Solís-Hernández, R.; Pacheco-Soriano, A.L. Emerging arboviruses (dengue, chikungunya, and Zika) in Southeastern Mexico: Influence of socio-environmental determinants on knowledge and practices. Cad. Saude Publica 2020, 36, e00110519. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 18. Toan, D.T.T.; Kien, V.D.; Giang, K.B.; Minh, H.V.; Wright, P. Perceptions of climate change and its impact on human health: An integrated quantitative and qualitative approach. Glob. Health Action 2014, 7, 23025. [CrossRef] 19. Podder, D.; Paul, B.; Dasgupta, A.; Bandyopadhyay, L.; Pal, A.; Roy, S. Community perception and risk reduction practices toward malaria and dengue: A mixed-method study in slums of Chetla, Kolkata. Indian J. Public Health 2019, 63, 178–185. [CrossRef] 20. Colón-González, F.J.; Lake, I.R.; Bentham, G. Climate variability and dengue fever in warm and humid Mexico. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2011, 84, 757–763. [CrossRef] 21. Sullivan, G.M.; Feinn, R. Using Effect Size-or Why the P Value Is Not Enough. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2012, 4, 279–282. [CrossRef] 22. Boussiala, M. Cook’s Distance. 2020. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344522968_Cook%27s_ Distance (accessed on 20 December 2021). 23. Aerts, C.; Revilla, M.; Duval, L.; Paaijmans, K.; Chandrabose, J.; Cox, H.; Sicuri, E. Understanding the role of disease knowledge and risk perception in shaping preventive behavior for selected vector-borne diseases in Guyana. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2020, 14, e0008149. [CrossRef] 24. Sheeran, P.; Maki, A.; Montanaro, E.; Avishai-Yitshak, A.; Bryan, A.; Klein, W.M.; Miles, E.; Rothman, A.J. The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2016, 35, 1178–1188. [CrossRef] 25. Barrett, C.; Cheung, K.L. Knowledge, socio-cognitive perceptions and the practice of hand hygiene and social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study of UK university students. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 426. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 26. Palomino Gonzalez, R.; Kadengye, T.; Mayega, R.W. The knowledge-risk-behaviour continuum among young Ugandans: What it tells us about SRH/HIV integration. BMC Public Health 2019, 19 (Suppl. 1), 604. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 27. Koschollek, C.; Kuehne, A.; Müllerschön, J.; Amoah, S.; Batemona-Abeke, H.; Dela Bursi, T.; Mayamba, P.; Thorlie, A.; Mputu Tshibadi, C.; Wangare Greiner, V.; et al. Knowledge, information needs and behavior regarding HIV and sexually transmitted infections among migrants from sub-Saharan Africa living in Germany: Results of a participatory health research survey. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0227178. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 28. Imai, H.; Furukawa, T.A.; Hayashi, S.U.; Goto, A.; Izumi, K.; Hayashino, Y.; Noda, M.; J-DOIT2 Study Group. Risk perception, self-efficacy, trust for physician, depression, and behavior modification in diabetic patients. J. Health Psychol. 2020, 25, 350–360. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 29. Rigau-Pérez, J.G.; Puerto Rico Association of Epidemiologists. Clinical manifestations of dengue hemorrhagic fever in Puerto Rico, 1990–1991. Rev. Panam. Salud Publica 1997, 1, 381–388. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 30. Liu-Helmersson, J.; Stenlund, H.; Wilder-Smith, A.; Rocklöv, J. Vectorial capacity of Aedes aegypti: Effects of temperature and implications for global dengue epidemic potential. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e89783. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 31. Rocklöv, J.; Quam, M.B.; Sudre, B.; German, M.; Kraemer, M.U.; Brady, O.; Bogoch, I.I.; Liu-Helmersson, J.; Wilder-Smith, A.; Semenza, J.C.; et al. Assessing Seasonal Risks for the Introduction and Mosquito-borne Spread of Zika Virus in Europe. EBioMedicine 2016, 9, 250–256. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 32. Gurman, T.; Ballard Sara, A.; Villanueva Lorenzo, F.; Luis, D.; Hunter, G.; Maloney, S.; Fujita-Conrads, R.; Leontsini, E. The role of gender in Zika prevention behaviors in the Dominican Republic: Findings and programmatic implications from a qualitative study. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2020, 14, e0007994. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 33. Apinjoh, T.O.; Anchang-Kimbi, J.K.; Mugri, R.N.; Tangoh, D.A.; Nyingchu, R.V.; Chi, H.F.; Tata, R.B.; Njumkeng, C.; Njua-Yafi, C.; Achidi, E.A. The effect of Insecticide Treated Nets (ITNs) on Plasmodium falciparum infection in rural and semi-urban communities in the south west region of Cameroon. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0116300. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 34. Dormann, C.; Duda, K.; Hamainza, B.; Yewhalaw, D.; Hemingway, C.; Coleman, M.; Coleman, M.; Thomsen, E. Evaluation of a game-based training course to build capacity for insecticide resistance management in vector control programmes. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0240514. [CrossRef] 35. Asingizwe, D.; Poortvliet, P.M.; van Vliet, A.J.; Koenraadt, C.J.; Ingabire, C.M.; Mutesa, L.; Leeuwis, C. What do people benefit from a citizen science programme? Evidence from a Rwandan citizen science programme on malaria control. Malar. J. 2020, 19, 283. [PubMed]

Journal

Behavioral Sciences – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Mar 28, 2022

Keywords: knowledge; self-efficacy; dengue fever; prevention; mosquito control; Mexico; Sonora; Colima

There are no references for this article.