Impact Factor 2021: 3.041 (@Clarivate Analytics)
5-Year Impact Factor: 2.776 (@Clarivate Analytics)
Immediacy Index: 0.927
Impact Factor Rank: 10/24, Q2 (Tropical Medicine)
  • Users Online: 282
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 206-212

Public knowledge, practices and perceptions on typhus fevers in Southern Sri Lanka


1 Rickettsial Disease Diagnostic and Research Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Ragama, 11010, Sri Lanka
2 Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Ragama 11010, Sri Lanka
3 Medical Officer of Health, Elpitiya, Ministry of Healthcare, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, 80400, Sri Lanka
4 Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Ragama 11010, Sri Lanka

Correspondence Address:
Nilmini Chandrasena
Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Ragama 11010
Sri Lanka
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: Field research work was financed in part by the National Research Council, Sri Lanka [NRC18-008] and Research Grant No. [RP/03/04/06/02/2018] of University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1995-7645.345942

Rights and Permissions

Objective: To assess public knowledge, practices and perceptions on typhus fevers in Sri Lanka. Methods: A descriptive study was done in four selected typhus- prone areas in Southern Sri Lanka. A mixed-method was employed using face-to-face interviews and questionnaire-based surveys among confirmed cases of typhus and at-risk populations, respectively. Frequencies, percentages, and means were used to characterize socio-demography and evaluate disease awareness. Results: The lay terms for typhus fevers reported in the studied region were “peacock fever”, “tick fever” and “bird fever”. A total of 499 subjects participated [mean±SD, (45±16) years] in the questionnaire-based survey, and 13.6% (n=68) reported past experience of typhus fever, 1.2% (n=6) identified the disease as “typhus” while 58.7% (n=293) and 11.8% (n=59) knew it as ‘peacock fever’ and ‘tick fever’, respectively. The etiological agent was unknown to 95.2% (n=475), but 53.5% ((n=267) were aware that it was vector-borne. Fever (57.3%, n=286), eschar (35.7%, n=178), headache (22.0%, n=267) and myalgia (19.2%, n=96) were identified as key symptoms. Past disease experience was significantly associated with higher awareness of the main disease symptoms (fever: χ2=15.713, P<0.001; headache: χ2=19.447, P<0.001; lymphadenopathy: Fisher’s exact test, P=0.023; eschar: χ2=12.049, P<0.001). None knew of any disease prevention methods. Participants with a past history of typhus fever had sought treatment at state hospitals (55.9%, 38/68) and private sector hospitals (5.9%, 4/68). Conclusions: Public awareness on preventive practices for typhus fevers was rare among the participants though vector-borne aspect was known to many. Clinical disease awareness was deficient among those without past experience of typhus fever. Community sensitization on vector avoidance strategies is highly recommended.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed588    
    Printed20    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded135    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal