Matthias Coutsoudis
A public health intervention used to manage vector borne illnesses involves aerial spraying of chemicals to kill mosquito larvae or adult mosquitoes. The action has caused controversy and community opposition in certain outbreaks. In this study, local opinion leaders in Zika-affected US communities were asked what they thought about community involvement in public health strategies for epidemic response. Focus groups were held in Houston, Texas, New Orleans, Louisiana, Miami, Florida, and Brooklyn, New York from December 2017 to March. They talked about a fictitious situation where spraying from the air was used to control vectors. Under the following 4 circumstances, participants more quickly accepted this vector control method: They were made aware of the alternatives, advantages, and environmental and human health risks. Claims about public health were supported by impartial data and an unbiased authority in the benefit of the neighbourhood. They got prompt information on how to reduce their exposure to toxins. Additionally, aerial spraying aided in protecting the weak. The local opinion leaders' demands for community involvement are consistent with the fundamental tenets of contemporary public health ethical frameworks, including individual liberty, openness, rationality, and solidarity.
Keywords: Vector control; Zika; Public health; Ethics;Disease outbreak; Community engagement
English 
Spanish 
Russian 
German 
French 
Japanese 
Portuguese 
Hindi