Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Factors associated with dengue prevention behaviour in Lowokwaru, Malang, Indonesia: a cross-sectional study

BMC Public Health201818:619

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5553-z

Received: 18 May 2017

Accepted: 8 May 2018

Published: 11 May 2018

Abstract

Background

Dengue prevention is important for controlling the spread of dengue infection. Transmission of dengue can be prevented by controlling mosquito breeding sites. Indonesia has dengue a prevention program to minimize mosquito breeding sites known as 3 M Plus. This study aimed to investigate factors associated with dengue prevention behaviour among respondents in the Lowokwaru subdistrict, an urban area in Malang, Indonesia.

Methods

This cross-sectional study used a semi-structured questionnaire that was conducted by face-to-face interview.

Results

Older respondents (> 60 years and 41–60 years) showed better dengue prevention behaviour than younger respondents (21–40 years and < 21 years) (p value = 0.01). Proportionally more male respondents showed poor dengue prevention behaviour compared with female respondents (p value = 0.007). Respondents who lived in Malang for long durations showed better dengue prevention behaviour compared with those who lived there for a shorter period (p value = 0.016). Those with more family members in their households practiced better dengue prevention behaviour compared with those with fewer family members (p value = 0.004). Perception was associated with dengue prevention behaviour. Respondents who had higher perceived susceptibility showed better dengue prevention behaviour compared with those who had moderate perceptions (p value = 0.000).

Conclusions

Age, gender, duration of stay in Malang, number of family members, and perception of dengue susceptibility were associated with dengue prevention behaviour.

Keywords

DenguePreventionBehaviourUrbanMalangIndonesia

Background

Dengue is regarded by the World Health Organization as “one of the most important arboviral infections in the world” [1]. The burden of dengue has grown dramatically, particularly in Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific [2]. Several factors influenced this resurgence, including: 1) population growth in urban areas resulting in substandard housing and inadequate water and waste management systems [3]; 2) lack of education, information and communication concerning vectors of dengue virus [4]; 3) increased air travel, which has allowed for the rapid movement of infected travellers between population centres of the tropics and resulted in an exchange of dengue viruses [5]; and 4) ineffective mosquito control measures for reducing the mosquito population [6, 7].

The first dengue cases were reported in Jakarta and Surabaya in 1964. In total, 58 patients were diagnosed with dengue in Surabaya, 24 of whom subsequently died. Thereafter, dengue spread to all provinces of Indonesia [8, 9]. By 2010, Indonesia ranked the highest for dengue cases among Southeast Asian countries [10]. In 2014, the Ministry of Health reported that the regions with the highest incidence of dengue cases were West, Central and East Java [11].

In 1992, the Ministry of Health of Indonesia began implementing various strategies against dengue, including surveillance systems, case management, vector control and programs aimed at changing people’s behaviour. The aims of vector control and behavioural change were combined in a surveillance program known as 3 M Plus, which required communities to be responsible for periodically finding and eradicating potential and existing mosquito nests in their respective vicinities. The three “M’s” were: menutup (meaning covering water containers), menguras (cleaning water containers), and mengubur/membuang (burying/throwing discarded items). Meanwhile, the “Plus” indicates activities aimed at reducing mosquito breeding places, such as using chemicals to kill larvae or fogging, and activities to protect people from mosquito bites, such as using repellent, mosquito coils, insecticide or long sleeves and trousers [8, 12].

Malang is the second largest city in East Java Province, Indonesia. Malang has been an endemic area of dengue since the first time dengue occurred in Indonesia [8, 9]. The number of cases of dengue in Malang continues to grow. The worst outbreak of dengue in Indonesia occurred in 2010 and urban areas like Malang were especially hard hit. There were 658 dengue cases from January to May 2010 in Malang, with 243 cases reported in February alone. Moreover, dengue-related mortality cases have increased every year; one patient died in 2014, whereas three patients died in 2015 [1315].

Previous studies have revealed that many factors influence dengue prevention practices, including knowledge and perception. Participants with higher knowledge of dengue were reported to adopt dengue prevention techniques more frequently compared with those with low knowledge [1621]. In addition, studies found that individuals with high perceived susceptibility to dengue adopted more dengue prevention measures compared with those with low perceived susceptibility [17]. A study in Malaysia showed the prevalence of dengue fever was higher in participants who engaged in high-risk behaviours compared with those who exhibited low-risk behaviours [21]. However, several studies revealed that good knowledge about dengue fever did not correlate with good prevention behaviour [2224].

Regarding socioeconomic factors, such as income, there was an association between family income and dengue prevention behaviour [25]. Another study revealed an association between number of family members and dengue prevention behaviour [26]. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate factors associated with dengue prevention behaviour among respondents living in high-risk urban areas in Malang. This study would be useful for local health providers in planning appropriate interventions to increase community participation in dengue prevention programs, particularly in urban areas in Malang.

Methods

Study design and sample

Sample size was calculated by using the formula \( {\mathrm{n}}_0=\kern0.5em \frac{{\mathrm{Z}}^2\mathrm{pq}}{{\mathrm{e}}^2} \) [27].

Where n0 is the sample size, z2 was standard value normal distribution at 95% confidence level (1.96), p (=42.6) was percentage of dengue prevention behaviour from previous study [28], e2 was acceptable maximum error (7%). The minimum sample size was 191 and after adding 20% to anticipate for the non-response rate, data were collected from 220 respondents.

This was a cross-sectional study conducted among respondents living in Malang City of East Java during May–June 2016. Malang city has divided area into urban (sub-district) and rural (regency). There are five sub-districts in Malang: Lowokwaru, Klojen, Blimbing, Kedungkandang and Sukun. Lowokwaru sub-district with the highest number of dengue cases was selected as studied site. In 2015, Lowokwaru sub-district had 50,574 household with the total population of 166,837 [29]. This sub-district consists of 12 villages. This study was conducted in Lowokwaru village with the highest prevalence of dengue in 2015. Lowokwaru village has 104 clusters [30]. This study randomly selected 15 clusters from Lowokwaru village. From each cluster, 14–15 respondents were randomly recruited into the study. This study enrolled registered residents aged 18 years and above who had lived more than 6 months in the Lowokwaru village and who were willing to participate in this study. Residents who were not at home during data collection were excluded from this study.

Data collection and analysis

Data collection to explore knowledge, perceptions, and dengue prevention behaviour used a semi-structured questionnaire conducted through face-to-face interviews. The questionnaire was developed, pre-tested and modified according to the pre-tested results. Reliability was computed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and resulted in alpha score 0.736 [31]. Before interviewing, all respondents were informed of the study details and that the information they gave would be kept confidential and they could stop answering questions at any time. The maximum score for the knowledge portion was 14 and respondents would be considered as needing improvement if they scored 0–8 (< 60%), having moderate knowledge if they scored 9–11 (60–80%), and having good knowledge with a score of 12–14. The perception portion consisted of 19 statements. Each positive statement was given a score of 5 for “strongly agree”, 4 for “agree”, 3 for “neutral”, 2 for “disagree”, and 1 for “strongly disagree”. Conversely, negative statements were given a score of 5 for “strongly disagree”, 4 for “disagree”, 3 for “neutral”, 2 for “agree”, and 1 for “strongly agree”. The maximum score for the perception portion was 95 and respondents scoring 0–31 were considered to have a negative perception, those scoring 32–63 were considered to have a moderate perception, and a score of 64–95 indicated a positive perception if the score range. The maximum score for dengue prevention behaviour was 18, and participant were considered as needing improvement with a score of 0–10 (< 60%), showing moderate prevention behaviours with a score of 11–14 (60–80%), and good prevention behaviour with a score of 15–18. SPSS, Version 18 was used for statistical analysis, and descriptive data were presented as frequencies and percentages.

SPSS was used for analyses and chi-square was used to explore the association between independent variables and dengue prevention behaviour. Factors influencing dengue prevention behaviour were analysed using binary logistic regression model, backward.

Results

Approximately 72% of respondents were female; 67.7% were aged 31–60 years at the time of the study, and 80% reported having lived in Malang for more than 20 years. Almost one-third of the sample completed senior high school or higher education; 57.3% were unemployed; and 67% of those employed had an income of 1–3 million rupiah per month. Approximately 90% of respondents reported having three or more family members in their household (Table 1).
Table 1

Respondent characteristics

 

Number

Percent

Gender

 Male

60

27.3

 Female

160

72.7

Age

 18–30

40

18.2

 31–40

48

21.8

 41–50

49

22.3

 51–60

52

23.6

  > 60

31

14.1

Duration of stay in Malang

  < 21 years

44

20.0

 21–30 years

32

14.5

 31–40 years

47

21.4

 41–50 years

41

18.6

 51–60 years

35

15.9

  > 60 years

21

9.6

Education level

 No education

2

0.9

 Elementary school

23

10.5

 Junior high school

33

15.0

 Senior high school

117

53.2

 College and higher

45

20.5

Occupation

 Unemployed

126

57.3

 Government

6

2.7

 Private (owner)

31

14.1

 Private (worker)

57

25.9

Income/month (million rupiah*)

  < 1

18

19.1

 1–3

63

67.0

  > 3

13

13.8

Number of family members in the household (person)

 1–2

22

10.1

 3–4

99

45.4

  > 4

97

44.5

*Million rupiah = 100 US$

Approximately 88% of respondents reported having received information about dengue, and about 25% had experienced of dengue (Table 2).
Table 2

Information and experience of dengue

Issue

Number

Percent

Received dengue information

 Yes

193

87.7

 No

27

12.3

Family experience of dengue

 Yes

56

25.5

 No

164

74.5

It was found that 43.6% of respondents had moderate knowledge and 36.4% had good knowledge regarding dengue. More than 82% of respondents had a positive perception of dengue. Most had a moderate level of prevention behaviour. Only 3.2% of respondents had a good level of prevention behaviour, and 35.8% needed to improve their prevention behaviour (Table 3).
Table 3

Level of knowledge, perception, and prevention behaviour regarding dengue

Issue

Number

Percent

Knowledge level

 Need Improvement

44

20

 Moderate

96

43.6

 Good

80

36.4

Perception level

 Moderate

39

17.7

 Positive

181

82.3

Prevention behaviour level

 Need improvement

78

35.8

 Moderate

133

61.0

 Good

7

3.2

Dengue prevention behaviour and associated factors

Older respondents (> 60 years and 41–60 years) showed better dengue prevention behaviour than younger respondents (21–40 years and < 21 years) (p value = 0.01). A larger portion of male respondents needed to improve their dengue prevention behaviour compared with female respondents (p value = 0.007). Those who stayed longer in Malang reported better dengue prevention behaviour than those who lived in Malang for shorter durations (p value = 0.016). Those with more family members showed better dengue prevention behaviour compared with those with less family members (p value = 0.004). It was found that dengue prevention behaviour is associated with perceptions. Respondents who had a positive perception showed better dengue prevention behaviour compared with those who had a moderate perception (p value = 0.000). Those who positively perceived benefit toward dengue prevention practiced prevention behaviour more than those who had moderate level (p value = 0.005). It was also found that respondents who had positive level of barrier toward dengue prevention had better prevention behaviour than those who had moderate level (p value = 0.000) (Table 4).
Table 4

Association between independent factors and dengue prevention behaviour

Independent variables

Dengue prevention behaviour

P value

Need improvement

Moderate and Good*

N (%)

N (%)

Gender

 Male

30 (50%)

30 (50%)

0.007

 Female

48 (30.4%)

110 (69.6%)

 

Age

  < 21 years

4 (80.0%)

1 (20.0%)

0.010**

 21–40 years

37 (44.6%)

46 (55.4%)

 

 41–60 years

31 (31.0%)

69 (69.0%)

 

  > 60 years

6 (20.0%)

24 (80.0%)

 

Duration of stay in Malang (year)

 1–20

23 (52.3%)

21 (47.7%)

0.016

 21–40

31 (39.2%)

48 (60.8%)

 

 40–60

20 (26.7%)

55 (73.3%)

 

  > 60

4 (20.0%)

16 (80.0%)

 

Number of family member (year)

 1–2

15 (68.2%)

7 (31.8%)

0.004

 3–4

34 (34.35)

65 (65.7%)

 

  > 4

29 (30.5%)

66 (69.5%)

 

Perception level

 Moderate

24 (61.5%)

15 (38.5%)

0.000

 Positive

54 (30.2%)

125 (69.8%)

 

Perceive benefit level toward prevention behaviour

 Moderate

27 (51.9%)

25 (48.1%)

0.005

 Positive

51 (30.7%)

115 (69.3%)

 

Perceive barrier level toward prevention behaviours

 Moderate

50 (51%)

48 (49%)

0.000

 Positive

28 (23.3%)

92 (76.7%)

 

*Moderate combined with good dengue prevention behaviour

**Fisher’s exact test

Female respondents showed better (2.18 times) dengue prevention behaviour compared with male respondents. Respondents who had 3–5 and > 5 family members in their respective households showed better dengue prevention behaviour (7.08 times and 6.71 times, respectively) compared with those with 1–2 family members. Respondents who lived in Malang longer showed better dengue prevention behaviour. Respondents who lived in Malang for 21–40 years showed prevention behaviour 10.57 times better than those who lived in Malang for 1–20 years. It was also found that respondents who had a positive perception performed better prevention behaviour (3.74 times) compared with those who had a moderate perception. Respondents who had positive level of benefit and barrier toward dengue prevention showed better prevention than behaviour those who had moderate level (3.094 times and 2.285 times, respectively) (Table 5).
Table 5

Binary logistic regression analysis of factors influencing dengue prevention behaviour*

Variable

OR

95% CI

P value

Gender

 Female

2.18

1.104–4.296

0.025

 (Reference: male)

1.00

  

Number of family member (person)

  > 5

6.71

2.181–20.666

0.02

 3–5

7.08

2.281–21.997

0.01

 (Reference: 1–2)

1.00

 

0.01

Duration of stay (year)

  > 60

1.40

0.624–3.160

0.41

 41–60

2.73

1.163–6.403

0.21

 21–40

10.57

2.268–49.257

0.03

 (Reference: 1–20)

1.00

 

0.07

Perception level

 Positive

3.74

0.139–0.624

0.01

 (Reference: moderate)

1.00

  

Perceive benefit level toward prevention behaviour

 Positive

3.094

1.362–7.028

0.007

 (Reference: moderate)

   

 Perceive barrier level toward prevention behaviours

 Positive

2.285

1.160–4.499

0.017

 (Reference: moderate)

   

*Moderate combined with good dengue prevention behaviour

Discussion

Previous studies did not find an association between gender and dengue prevention behaviour [21, 26, 2832]. However, this study showed a significant association between respondent gender and dengue prevention behaviour. Approximately 50% of male respondents performed at the “need improvement” level of prevention behaviour, compared with female respondents at 30.4%. Indeed, most female respondents showed good prevention behaviour. This might be because in Indonesia, females generally have the social role of caring for the family and household [33]. Moreover, there is a working women’s group (PKK) that engages in social community activities, such as delivering dengue information [12].

It was found that dengue prevention behaviour was associated with the number of family members in a household. This result is consistent with those of other studies [26, 32]. A previous study found that respondents with a 3–5-person household and those with a > 5-person household showed better prevention behaviour compared with those with a 1–2-person household [32]. Similar result was reported for Aceh, Indonesia. It was found that those with more than five family members exhibited better behaviour compared with those with 1–5 members [26]. This might be because more family members could contribute to housekeeping tasks, including dengue prevention activities. It could also be that families with more members were able to acquire and share dengue information from more sources [26].

Studies in Thailand reported no association between duration of stay and dengue prevention behaviour [32, 34]. However, in the present study, duration of stay in Malang was associated with dengue prevention behaviour. Respondents who stayed longer practiced good behaviours more than those who resided in Malang for shorter periods of time. Fewer respondents living in Malang for > 60 years were categorized as “need improvement” for dengue prevention behaviour compared with those who had stayed in Malang for < 60 years. This might be because those who stayed > 60 years had more experience of dengue. Another study also revealed that duration of stay is associated with dengue prevention behaviour [28].

This study revealed that perceptions are associated with dengue prevention behaviour. Respondents with a positive perception engaged in dengue prevention behaviour more than those with a moderate perception. Furthermore, the study found that respondents who had positive level toward benefit and barrier of prevention had practiced prevention behaviour more than those with moderate levels. A study in Malaysia also found respondents with higher perceived susceptibility showed better dengue prevention behaviour [9].

Results concerning prevention behaviours were limited only on the interview data, the study did not follow up or observe respondents’ prevention actions. Another limitation was that in Muslim culture a third person presented during the interview. This might cause information bias.

This study showed that positive perception is the key component affected prevention behaviours, particularly perception toward benefit and barrier of prevention behaviours. It is, therefore, increase people’s perception regarding dengue is the main component in changing people’s prevention behaviours. Health providers have to find an appropriate and effective strategy to create people’s positive perception concerning dengue infection.

Conclusions

Age, gender, duration of stay in Malang, and number of family members were associated with dengue prevention behaviour. Those who had a positive perception showed better dengue prevention behaviour compare with those with a moderate perception.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all participants who gave the valuable information in this study.

Funding

This work was supported by the Dean-MORU, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University and Brawijaya University. They did not have any role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation and in writing the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

Data acquisition and drafting the work were performed by ANR. KO designed methodology. KO and YL revised the manuscript. YL, JK and ANR analyzed and interpreted the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University (MUTM 2016–015-01) and the local ethics committee in Malang, Indonesia (196/EC/KEPK/S2/05/2016). Respondents were recruited after giving written informed consent.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Social and Environmental Medicine, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
(2)
Faculty of Medicine, Brawijaya University Malang, Malang, Indonesia
(3)
Department of Tropical Hygiene, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

References

  1. World Health Organization Regional Office for South-East Asia. Dengue Fact Sheet. 2016. http://www.searo.who.int/entity/vector_borne_tropical_diseases/data/data_factsheet/en/. Accessed 16 Mar 2017.
  2. Murray N, Quam M, Wilder-Smith A. Epidemiology of dengue: past, present and future prospects. Clin Epidemiol. 2013;5:299–309.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Gubler DJ. The economic burden of dengue. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;86:743–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Castro M, Sánchez L, Pérez D, Sebrango C, Shkedy Z, Van der Stuyft P. The relationship between economic status, knowledge on dengue, risk perception and practices. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e81875. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081875.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen L, Wilson M. The role of the traveler in emerging infections and magnitude of travel. Med Clin N Am. 2008;92:1409–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gubler DJ. Epidemic dengue/dengue haemorrhagic fever as a public health, social and economic problem in the 21st century. Trends Microbiol. 2002;10:100–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Daude' E, Mazumdar S. Combating dengue in India: challenges and strategies. Econ Polot Wkly. 2016;51(8):767–74.Google Scholar
  8. Ministry of Health of Indonesia. Dengue hemorrhagic in Indonesia year 1969-2009. Buletin Jendela Epidemiologi. 2010;2(1):1–12.Google Scholar
  9. Karyanti MR, Uiterwaal CSPM, Kusriastuti R, Hadinegoro SR, Rovers MM, Heesterbeek H, et al. The changing incidence of dengue haemorrhagic fever in Indonesia: a 45-year registry-based analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14:412.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Pratamawati D. Mosquito larva monitoring inspector role in early alert system dengue haemorrhagic fever in Indonesis. Kesehatan Masyarakat Nasional. 2012;6(6):243–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Ministry of Health of Indonesia. Profile of disease control and environmental health. 2015 http://www.depkes.go.id/resources/download/pusdatin/profil-kesehatan-indonesia/indonesian%20health%20profile%202015.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2015.
  12. Kusriastuti R, Sutomo S. Evolution of dengue prevention and control. Dengue Bull. 2005;29:1–7.Google Scholar
  13. Public Health Office of Malang. Prevalence Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever Year. Pencegahan dan Pengendalian Penyakit. Indonesia. 2015;2015 (Indonesian)Google Scholar
  14. Lilik Z, Rasyid H, Hariani D. Related between dengue fever risky behaviours with dengue hemorrhagic fever incidence in Sawojajar residents Malang City. Faculty of Medicine, Brawijaya university. Indonesia. 2010;Google Scholar
  15. Zuhriyah L, Baskoro A. The key container of Aedes aegypti in rural and urban Malang, east java, Indonesia. Health and the environment. Journal. 2012;3(3):51–8.Google Scholar
  16. Chandren J, Wong L, AbuBakar S. Practices of dengue fever prevention and the associated factors among the orang asli in peninsular Malaysia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(8):e0003954. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003954.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Wong LP, Shakir SMM, Atefi N, AbuBakar S. Factors affecting dengue prevention practices: Nationwide survey of the Malaysian public. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0122890. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122890.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Mayxay M, Cui W, Thammavong S, Khensakhou K, Vongxay V, Inthasoum L, et al. Dengue in peri-urban Pak-Ngum district, Vientiane capital of Laos: a community survey on knowledge, attitudes and practices. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:434.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Mohamad M, Selamat MI, Ismail Z. Factors associated with larval control practices in dengue outbreak prone area. J Environ Public Health. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/459173.
  20. Paz-Soldan VA, Morrison AC, Cordova Lopez JJ, Lenhart A, Scott TW, Elder JP, et al. Dengue knowledge and preventive practices in Iquitos, Peru. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;93(6):1330–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Juni MH, Hayati KS, Cheng CM, Pyang GS, Nur Hayati AS, Zaidatul Syeila ZA. Risk behaviour associated with dengue fever among rural population in Malaysia. International journal of public health and clinical. Sciences. 2015;2(1):114–27.Google Scholar
  22. Koenraadt C, Tuiten W, Sithiprasasna R, Kijchalao U, Jones JW, Scott TW. Dengue knowledge and practices and their impact on Aedes aegypti populations in Kamphaeng Phet, Thailand. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006;74(4):692–700.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hairi F, Ong CH, Suhaimi A, Tsung TW, bin Anis Ahmad MA, Sundaraj C, et al. A knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) study on dengue among selected rural communities in the Kuala Kangsar district. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health / Asia-Pacific Academic Consortium for Public Health. 2003;15(1):37–43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Shuaib F, Todd D, Campbell-Stennett D, Ehiri J, Jolly PE. Knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding dengue infection in Westmoreland. Jamaica The West Indian Med J. 2010;59(2):139–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Chanyasanha C, Guruge GR, Sujirarat D. Factors influencing preventive behaviours for dengue infection among housewives in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Asia-Pacific journal of public health / Asia-Pacific Academic Consortium for Public Health. 2015;27(1):96–104.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Herlina. Preventive practice on dengue hemorrhagic fever in Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam province Indonesia. Faculty of Graduate Studies, Mahidol University. Thailand: Salaya; 2006.Google Scholar
  27. Israel GD. Determining sample size. Program evaluation and Organization development: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida; 1992. https://www.tarleton.edu/academicassessment/documents/Samplesize.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2015.
  28. Sakai M. Factors related to prevention behaviour against dengue hemorrhagic fever in Muang District, in Samut Sakhon, Thailand. Journal of public health and. Development. 2007;5(3):55–62.Google Scholar
  29. Malang government of demographic affairs. Report of population growth. http://dispendukcapil.malangkota.go.id/profil/. Accessed 1 Dec 2015.
  30. Lowokwaru sub-district office. Profile. https://keclowokwaru.malangkota.go.id/gambaran-umum/. Accessed 1 Dec 2015.
  31. Rosenthal R. Essentials of behavioural research: methods and data analysis. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991.Google Scholar
  32. Linn KT. Preventive practice on dengue hemorrhagic fever among Myanmar migrant Community in Samut Prakan Province, Thailand. Faculty of Graduate Studies: Mahidol University; 2009.Google Scholar
  33. Pujiyanti A, Triratnawati A. Pengetahuan dan Pengalaman Ibu Rumah Tangga Atas Nyamuk Demam Berdarah Dengue. Jurnal Kesehatan. 2011;15(1):6–14.Google Scholar
  34. Mo W. Dengue preventive behaviour among Myanmar migrants in Mae Sot District, Tak Province, Thailand. Salaya, Thailand: Faculty of Graduate Studies, Mahidol University; 2011.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement