This article discusses the relationship between urban slums and the management of the urban infrastructure network (electrification). An extensive survey of the scientific literature on the subject points out the main challenges and possible solutions for fixing precarious electrical infrastructure in urban slums through the promotion of public policies and the establishment of new arrangements based on distributed generation technologies and smart grid. A dialogue was also developed involving topics such as sustainable development and electrification of slums; relationship between communities and modernization of electrification; and emerging and sustainable technologies in the context of urban slums. Thus, a design was constructed that triggered a discussion of the relationship between this work and several other works found in the literature. This research indicates the need to strengthen local governance and the participation of urban slums for the technological modernization of the local electrical network, mainly with the implementation of smart grid and photovoltaic generation systems.
Citation: Wesly Jean, Antonio C. P. Brasil Junior, Eugênia Cornils Monteiro da Silva. Smart grid systems infrastructures and distributed solar power generation in urban slums–A case study and energy policy in Rio de Janeiro[J]. AIMS Energy, 2023, 11(3): 486-502. doi: 10.3934/energy.2023025
[1] | Fulian Yin, Jiahui Lv, Xiaojian Zhang, Xinyu Xia, Jianhong Wu . COVID-19 information propagation dynamics in the Chinese Sina-microblog. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(3): 2676-2692. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020146 |
[2] | Fulian Yin, Xueying Shao, Jianhong Wu . Nearcasting forwarding behaviors and information propagation in Chinese Sina-Microblog. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 5380-5394. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019268 |
[3] | Fulian Yin, Xinyi Tang, Tongyu Liang, Yanjing Huang, Jianhong Wu . External intervention model with direct and indirect propagation behaviors on social media platforms. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(11): 11380-11398. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022530 |
[4] | Xiaonan Chen, Suxia Zhang . An SEIR model for information propagation with a hot search effect in complex networks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(1): 1251-1273. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023057 |
[5] | Tinghuai Ma, Hongmei Wang, Yuwei Zhao, Yuan Tian, Najla Al-Nabhan . Topic-based automatic summarization algorithm for Chinese short text. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(4): 3582-3600. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020202 |
[6] | Cheng-Cheng Zhu, Jiang Zhu . Spread trend of COVID-19 epidemic outbreak in China: using exponential attractor method in a spatial heterogeneous SEIQR model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(4): 3062-3087. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020174 |
[7] | Ruirui Han, Zhichang Zhang, Hao Wei, Deyue Yin . Chinese medical event detection based on event frequency distribution ratio and document consistency. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(6): 11063-11080. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023489 |
[8] | Shan Huang, Khor Teik Huat, Yue Liu . Study on the influence of Chinese traditional culture on corporate environmental responsibility. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(8): 14281-14305. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023639 |
[9] | Xiaoqing Lu, Jijun Tong, Shudong Xia . Entity relationship extraction from Chinese electronic medical records based on feature augmentation and cascade binary tagging framework. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(1): 1342-1355. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024058 |
[10] | A. N. Licciardi Jr., L. H. A. Monteiro . A complex network model for a society with socioeconomic classes. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(7): 6731-6742. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022317 |
This article discusses the relationship between urban slums and the management of the urban infrastructure network (electrification). An extensive survey of the scientific literature on the subject points out the main challenges and possible solutions for fixing precarious electrical infrastructure in urban slums through the promotion of public policies and the establishment of new arrangements based on distributed generation technologies and smart grid. A dialogue was also developed involving topics such as sustainable development and electrification of slums; relationship between communities and modernization of electrification; and emerging and sustainable technologies in the context of urban slums. Thus, a design was constructed that triggered a discussion of the relationship between this work and several other works found in the literature. This research indicates the need to strengthen local governance and the participation of urban slums for the technological modernization of the local electrical network, mainly with the implementation of smart grid and photovoltaic generation systems.
The Zika virus (ZIKV) was isolated for the first time in 1947 in the Zika forest in Uganda [1,2]. On February 1, 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared ZIKV a public health emergency of international concern [2]. In March 2017, the WHO reported that 84 countries have found evidence of mosquito-borne transmission of ZIKV and 61 countries have reported human ZIKV cases [3]. At the end of November 2017, the total number of confirmed human ZIKV cases worldwide was 229,238 with an incidence rate of 80.19 per 100,000 [4]. The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) reported nearly 500,000 suspected ZIKV cases in Central American, South American and Caribbean countries [5]. Despite reports indicating that some countries in South America are reporting a decrease in incidence of ZIKV cases [5], the WHO recommends that vigilance remain high [3]. In Ecuador, recent reports show a decrease in suspected cases but increase in number of confirmed cases of ZIKV [6]. Aedes mosquitoes transmit the Zika virus. Onset of the disease is usually 2-7 days after the mosquito bite and is usually accompanied by rash, mild fever, conjunctivitis, and muscle pain. Only 25% of those infected will develop symptoms [7,8]. The virus has been found in semen and can be sexually transmitted [9]. Since February 2015, 13 countries have reported person to person transmission [3]. Five countries in the Americas have reported sexually transmitted ZIKV cases [5]. ZIKV can be transmitted in utero to the unborn fetus but there are reports of ZIKV being found in breastmilk [10].
ZIKV is a public health issue because of the severe consequences of infection that can occur. Infection in pregnant women, specifically, is of major concern as it is linked to catastrophic fetal abnormalities including microcephaly, spontaneous abortion, and intrauterine growth restriction [7]. Research has shown that ZIKV infection during pregnancy can cause congenital brain abnormalities, including microcephaly, which can produce both mental and physical developmental disabilities [11,12,13]. ZIKV can also trigger Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), a neurological condition that causes the body's immune system to attack the nervous system, resulting in varying degrees of weakness, tingling, and/or paralysis [14]. Because of the complications, it is essential that appropriately designed interventions to communicate credible information about ZIKV are implemented, especially in Ecuador where there are active cases of transmission. Two cases of GBS have been reported in Ecuador [6].
Public health researchers recognize that risk reduction includes dealing with information gaps in one of the three pillars in the “Zika Triad” [15] along with reducing disease spread and recognizing vulnerabilities. The ZIKV triad consists of an external agent, a susceptible host, and an environment that brings the host and agent together. In this case, disease results from the interaction between the agent and the susceptible host in an environment that supports transmission of the agent from a source to that host [15]. Therefore, understanding how individuals think about their susceptibility to ZIKV, the consequences of getting ZIKV, as well as their beliefs about their ability to prevent transmission of the disease are critical to developing effective methods for reducing risk and ultimately, transmission rates.
In Ecuador, recent reports show a decrease in suspected cases but increase in number of confirmed cases of ZIKV [6]. To date, Ecuador (population 16,279,000) has reported 3,753 suspected and 3,058 confirmed autochthonous cases of ZIKV (incidence rate of 41.26/100,000) [4]. The highest ZIKV incidence rates were reported from the coastal provinces of Esmeraldas, Guayas, Manabi, and Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas (incidence rate of 23.0-201.8/100,000) [6]. As of epidemiological week (EW) 32 of 2017, there were 912 confirmed cases in pregnant women, with the highest number of confirmed cases (329 cases) from Guayas Province, which is near the coast and was somewhat affected by the earthquake in April, 2016. Of the total cases in pregnant women, 176 were infected in the first trimester, 531 in the second and 205 in the third [6]. There have been 7 confirmed cases of congenital syndrome associated with ZIKV in Ecuador since 2015 [4]. No deaths have been reported in Ecuador related to ZIKV [6].
The health belief model (HBM) [16,17,18] is one of the most widely utilized value-expectancy theories in public health and has been applied to numerous health behaviors. The model posits that if a person holds expectancies about a particular disease or condition and the person believes there is a behavior(s) that can prevent the disease or condition, then the individual is more likely to perform the associated behavior(s). The HBM has 6 constructs, including perceived susceptibility (susceptibility to ZIKV), perceived severity (consequences of getting ZIKV), perceived barriers (barriers to preventing ZIKV), perceived benefits (benefits to performing behaviors to prevent ZIKV), cues to action (cues to prompt behavior change to prevent ZIKV) and self-efficacy (the confidence to prevent ZIKV).
Previous research has been conducted on knowledge and perceptions of Zika and ZIKV in several countries including Colombia [19], India [20], Nigeria [21], Qatar [22], as well as in the US [23]. The study in Colombia utilized a convenience sample (n = 269) of participants (healthcare workers and students) in a ZIKA symposium across four locations. Not surprisingly, the levels of knowledge of ZIKV were high [19]. The study in India assessed Zika knowledge among dental practitioners (n = 412) in a highly urbanized area. Less than half of the practitioners had high levels of knowledge of Zika. The researchers found differences in mean knowledge scores based on qualification of the participants, with postgraduates having more knowledge than graduates. Television was the primary source of information for most of the respondents [20]. A study of 377 reproductive-age women attending a Nigerian general outpatient clinic found that overall the women had high levels of awareness of Zika (including that it caused microcephaly) but low levels of knowledge of transmission, and in particular lacked knowledge of prevention of sexual transmission [21]. The study in Qatar also utilized a convenience sample of university students (n = 446). The authors concluded that the population had inadequate knowledge of Zika, and felt that even though few cases had been reported, health education about Zika is important in this population [22].
While the aforementioned studies represent some of the emerging studies assessing ZIKV knowledge and attitudes, to date few published studies have assessed the attitudes toward ZIKV using the HBM and none has done so in Latin America. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess (1) ZIKV knowledge and (2) attitudes toward ZIKV based on the constructs of the HBM. The results of this study will be used to assist in intervention design and messaging in Ecuador.
This study utilized a cross-sectional design in which self-report survey data were collected in multiple community settings in Ecuador. This study was a part of a larger study that was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Ohio University (IRB protocol #16x117). Survey data were collected at parks, workplaces, markets, hospital and public health clinics in rural and urban settings in Ecuador. Data were collected in May 2016 from small cities and rural areas in the Amazon and Andes region of Ecuador and spanned from southern Ecuador near the Peruvian border to Northern Ecuador. These data were collected as part of a 15 day study abroad trip to Ecuador, during which 6 localities were visited. These locations were chosen for the study abroad experience and not able to be altered for data collection. Since data collection was not the only purpose of the study abroad, and there were very few days in each location, only a few hours of data collection were possible at each site. Within each of the 6 locations, as previously mentioned, data were collected by multiple groups at multiple settings (For example, a group of 3-4 would go to the market, while others would go to the park or health clinic). Target recruitment was not pre-determined in each location. Data were collected time permitting at each site.
This study was part of a larger study that collected self-report quantitative data about HIV knowledge, HIV stigma, attitudes toward safer sex, attitudes toward teen pregnancy, and ZIKV knowledge and attitudes. As such, the full study instrument was 13 pages long and had 136 items. Initially, assessing ZIKV knowledge and attitudes was not a part of the original study, but the items were added due to the timely nature of the epidemic. For the larger study, all the instruments, except for the attitudes toward teen pregnancy and ZIKV knowledge and attitudes, were found to be valid and reliable in English speaking populations. The HIV knowledge had also been validated in Spanish speaking individuals in the United States. To the knowledge of these authors, this was the first time any of these scales had been used in Ecuador. The teen pregnancy and ZIKV items were developed by the author and reviewed for face validity by content experts. It took participants 20-30+ minutes (depending on literacy levels) to complete the questionnaire, and unfortunately, the ZIKV items were last. As a result, twenty-three participants of the larger study did not complete the entire questionnaire; leaving the ZIKV items blank.
The research team consisted of 10 native English-speaking university students and 4 bilingual individuals (3 Ecuadorian and 1 American). Teams of 4, including a bilingual individual, visited various aforementioned locations to distribute the surveys. To be eligible to participate, individuals had to meet the following inclusion criteria: (1) 18 years of old or older, (2) live in Ecuador, and (3) speak fluent Spanish. Participants were approached in public spaces and were invited to read the informed consent form in Spanish or have it read to them. If they consented to participate and signed the informed consent form, they were given the survey in Spanish to complete on their own, or with assistance if needed.
Number and percentage of refusals were not tracked, but it was clear that in the rural indigenous areas, the refusal rates were higher. In all locations, one of the authors and her bilingual Ecuadorian assistant had visited with the local health officials and/or practitioners in summers 2014 and 2015 to conduct an informal needs assessment. It was during these trips that the locals made it clear that sexual health was a priority due to the high teen pregnancy rate. As a result, in summer 2016, the authors designed the larger study to assess sexual health related topics. Since the authors had visited these locations 2 times prior and were known and respected in the local communities. Even though this was the case, the research team had the most trouble collecting data from individuals in Saraguro, despite having met with the Mayor of Saraguro the two previous summers and getting his approval to collect data on these sensitive issues.
Most of the participants completed the surveys in about 20-30 minutes and were given information about ZIKV and HIV in exchange for their time. The ZIKV information that we distributed was a one-page pictogram developed by the CDC in Spanish and the HIV prevention information was distributed in a small pamphlet called “Me Quede Frio”, which was developed and distributed by an Ecuadorian non-profit, Fundacion Ecuatoriana Equidad. We also distributed condoms to interested individuals. Condoms that were not distributed were donated to public health clinic in a small rural community outside of Tena.
The measures in this study assessed knowledge and attitudes related to ZIKV. There were 7 items that measured ZIKV knowledge and there were 23 items that measured attitudes toward ZIKV using the Health Belief Model (HBM). These knowledge and HBM attitude items were developed by one of the authors based on transmission information that was available by CDC in early 2016, because at the time this study was designed and submitted for IRB review, the WHO survey instrument was not available [24]. The knowledge items were reviewed for face validity by an expert in infectious diseases and the attitude items were similarly reviewed by experts in health behavior. The HBM knowledge items were either dichotomous (yes/no or true/false) or multiple choice and multiple response (choose all that apply). The HBM items were scored on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total possible scores on the scale ranged from 23 to 115. The HBM items measured each of the six HBM constructs, including perceived susceptibility to ZIKV (range possible 2-10), perceived severity of acquiring ZIKV (range possible 3-15), perceived benefits of prevention activities (range 5-25), perceived barriers to prevention activities (range possible 5-25), self-efficacy to prevent ZIKV (range possible 5-25), and cues to action to prompt prevention activities range 3-15). (See Table 1 for wording of questions). Demographic information was also collected for each participant, including age, gender, marital status, educational background and pregnancy status (if female).
Construct items | N |
% |
Perceived Susceptibility | ||
I am at risk for getting ZIKV | 77 | 47.5 |
I am at greater risk of getting ZIKV than other people | 40 | 24.7 |
Perceived Severity | ||
ZIKV may cause serious health problems | 126 | 77.8 |
ZIKV complications are dangerous | 120 | 74.1 |
If I contracted the ZIKV, it could spread to other family members | 92 | 56.8 |
Perceived Benefits to Preventing Zika Virus | ||
Preventing mosquito bites can prevent ZIKV infection | 108 | 66.7 |
Wearing bug spray can prevent ZIKV infection | 118 | 72.8 |
Wearing long shirts and pants can prevent ZIKV infection | 103 | 63.6 |
Wearing condoms can prevent ZIKV transmission to another person | 45 | 27.8 |
Perceived Barriers to Preventing Zika Virus | ||
I am generally opposed to using condoms | 30 | 18.5 |
Bug spray is expensive | 37 | 22.8 |
Bug spray is easy to obtain in my town | 119 | 73.5 |
Condoms are expensive | 29 | 17.9 |
Condoms are easy to obtain in my town | 116 | 71.6 |
Wearing long sleeves and pants is easy for me to do | 91 | 56.2 |
Cues to Action | ||
The media impacts my decision to take action to prevent getting ZIKV | 111 | 68.5 |
My doctor/nurse impacts my decision to take action to prevent ZIKV | 91 | 56.2 |
My friends/family impact my decision to take action to prevent ZIKV | 92 | 56.8 |
Self-Efficacy | ||
I am confident that I can prevent getting ZIKV | 104 | 64.2 |
I am confident I can wear bug spray | 122 | 75.3 |
I am confident I can wear long sleeves/pants | 126 | 77.8 |
I am confident I can wear condoms | 104 | 64.2 |
I am confident I can avoid pregnancy | 110 | 67.9 |
*Equals Agree and Strongly Agree combined. Note: Wearing long clothing can prevent Zika X2(1, N=140) 6.72, p = 0.01 - rural urban. T-test results by Knowledge Level and Individual Health Belief Items indicate If I get ZIKV, it could spread to others in my family (t(149) = −2.34, p = 0.02) and Using insect repellent could prevent the spread of Zika (t(152) = 2.85, p = 0.00) were statistically significant. |
Construct | Gender | Rural/Urban | Education | Vaccine Exists | Knowledge Level |
Perceived Susceptibility | t(152) = 1.13, p = 0.225 | t(152) = −1.15, p = 0.25 | t(130) = 0.45, p = 0.66 | t(152) = 0.79, p = 0.64 | t(151) = −0.37, p = 0.97 |
Perceived Severity | t(150) = −1.73, p = 0.09 | t(150) = 0.08, p = 0.93 | t(129) = −0.78, p = 0.44 | t(150) = 1.34, p = 0.18 | t(149) = −2.17, p = 0.03* |
Perceived Benefits | t(147) = −0.37, p = 0.71 | t(147) = 0.05, p = 0.96 | t(1287) = 1.19, p = 0.24 | t(147) = 0.35, p = 0.73 | t(146) = 2.12, p = 0.04* |
Perceived Barriers | t(140) = −0.36, p = 0.72 | t(140) = 1.26, p = 0.21 | t(121) = 0.04, p = 0.97 | t(140) = 0.53, p = 0.60 | t(139) = .17, p = 0.87 |
Cues to Action | t(151) = −1.98, p = 0.04* | t(151) = 1.29, p = 0.20 | t(129) = 0.48, p = 0.63 | t(151) = 0.36, p = 0.72 | t(150) = −0.12, p = 0.91 |
Self-Efficacy | t(144) = −0.33, p = 0.74 | t(144) = −0.69, p = 0.49 | t(122) = 0.27, p = 0.79 | t(144) = −0.19, p = 0.86 | t(143) = 0.05, p = 0.96 |
Descriptive statistics were used to describe the demographic data, knowledge and attitudinal data. Marital status was dichotomized to “partnered” or “unpartnered” and educational background was dichotomized to “high school graduate” or “not a high school graduate.” Paired t-tests were run to assess the differences in the HBM items by educational status, gender, and location of residence (rural vs. urban). Rural was designated for any location with less than 50,000 residents and urban for greater than 50,000 [25]. Separate cross-tab analyses were conducted to determine if a relationship existed between gender, educational level, rural/urban and ZIKV knowledge items. The chi-square test statistics and associated p-values were reported for all cross-tabs with 5 or more responses per cell and Fisher's Exact test p-values were reported for analyses with fewer than 5 per cell.
A ZIKV knowledge scale was developed using 4 of the 7 knowledge items. Two of the 4 items had multiple responses (choose all that apply) so the responses were transformed into unique variables with dichotomous (yes no) responses. For example, one item asked, “How is Zika transmitted?” and it had 7 possible responses (mosquito bites, sexual contact, mother to child, blood transfusion, urine or feces, casual contact, and coughing/sneezing). Each item checked was calculated as a “yes” dichotomous response and those left blank as “no.” The possible knowledge scores ranged from a low of 0 to a high of 13. Participants were classified as “adequate knowledge” if their score was 1 standard deviation above the mean or higher. All others were classified as “poor knowledge.” We only used 1 standard deviation so there would be enough cases for statistical analyses.
Separate independent sample t-tests were conducted with gender, rural/urban, educational level, knowledge level, and belief vaccine exists as grouping variables and the HBM constructs as the continuous dependent variables. If one of the HBM constructs had statistically significant differences between grouping variables, then additional t-tests were computed for the individual items that made up the HBM constructs. All analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 23.0 and 24.0 [26].
A total of 181 Ecuadorians agreed to participate in this study. The average age of the sample was 33.4 (SD ± 10.9) with a range from 18 to 65 years of age. Over half the sample lived in urban (n = 98) locations (population greater than 50,000), identified as female (n = 96, 53%) were married or partnered (n = 110, 60.8%), and had at least a high school education (n = 116, 64.1%). Of the 96 women in this study, only 3 were pregnant at the time of the study (See Table 3).
Characteristics | N | % |
Average age | 33.4 (SD ± 10.90) | |
Range 18-65 | ||
Gender | ||
Female | 96 | 53.0 |
Male | 85 | 47.0 |
Pregnant | 3 | |
Relationship | ||
Married | 110 | 60.8 |
Single | 70 | 39.2 |
Educational Level | ||
Primary school only | 41 | 22.7 |
Higher education | 69 | 38.1 |
Location | ||
Saraguro | 43 | 24.0 |
Loja | 44 | 24.0 |
Tena | 30 | 17.0 |
Carimanga | 30 | 16.0 |
Otavalo | 14 | 11.0 |
Mach | 20 | 8.0 |
With respect to ZIKV knowledge, most of the participants had heard of ZIKV (n = 162, 89.5%) and of those who had, more than half (n = 87, 53.7%) first heard about ZIKV from the television. The majority knew that ZIKV was transmitted via mosquito bites (n = 151, 93.2%), but only 8.6% (n = 14) and 17.3% (n = 28) knew that it was transmitted sexually and from mother to child, respectively. While over half the sample (n = 102, 62.9%) knew that preventing a mosquito bite could prevent ZIKV transmission, only 9.8% (n = 16) knew that wearing condoms could prevent transmission. Notably, 50.0% (n = 81) erroneously believed that a vaccine was available to prevent ZIKV and only 21.6% (n = 35) of the participants, who knew that ZIKV was transmitted via mosquitoes, knew that the mosquitoes were day biters. Nearly 85% (n = 135) knew that there were confirmed cases of ZIKV in Ecuador and 14.2% (n = 23) knew someone who had been diagnosed with ZIKV (See Table 4). None of the analyses revealed differences for gender, educational level, and rural/urban and knowledge items.
There were differences by grouping variables (See Table 4). There were more males who reported hearing of ZIKV on the internet first compared to women, (p = 0.02), there were more rural individuals who reported knowing someone diagnosed with ZIKV (p = 0.02) compared to their urban counterparts, there were more primary school educated individuals who reported hearing about ZIKV first from their doctor/nurse compared to high school graduates (p = 0.03), and finally there were more high school graduates who correctly identified that ZIKV could be transmitted from mother to child (p = 0.03) than primary school educated individuals.
Based on the calculated knowledge score, the mean was 4.74, SD = 1.50, so all scores 1 standard deviation, (or higher than 6), were categorized as “adequate knowledge” and lower than 6 were classified as “low knowledge”. Using this classification, 72.2% (n = 117) were considered to have low knowledge and 25.9% (n = 42) were considered to have adequate knowledge.
Nearly half of those who answered the perceived susceptibility HBM items (n = 77, 50%) agreed or strongly agreed that they were at risk for contracting the disease, yet less than 25% (n = 40) agreed or strongly agreed that they were at greater risk than others. The majority (n = 126, 77.8%) also agreed or strongly agreed that infection can cause severe consequences and the complications can be dangerous. The majority agreed or strongly agreed that preventing being bit by mosquitos (n = 108, 66.7%), using insect repellent (n =118, 72.8%), and wearing long pants/sleeves could prevent ZIKV transmission (n = 103, 63.6%), yet very few (n = 16, 9.8%) responded that using condoms would prevent the transmission of the disease (See Table 1).
There was a statistically significant difference between gender and cues to action, (p = 0.04), with males having a statistically significant lower mean on the cues to action items (M = 10.51, SD ± 3.48) compared to females (M = 11.63, SD ± 3.51). Further analyses of the three cues to action items revealed a statistically significant difference between males and females on the item “My friends and family influence my decision to take action to prevent Zika Virus.” Male participants had a statistically significant lower mean (M = 3.25, SD ± 1.49) than females (M = 3.87, SD ± 1.43), indicating that women were more likely to agree that their family and friends influenced their decision to take action to prevent ZIKV.
There was a statistically significant difference on perceived severity between those categorized as having adequate knowledge compared to low knowledge on perceived severity (p = 0.03) (see Table 2). Further analysis showed that individuals with adequate levels of ZIKV knowledge endorsed more strongly the notion that “If I was to get ZIKV, it could spread to others in my family” (p = 0.03). There was also a difference in the perceived benefits construct (p = 0.04). Further analysis showed that individuals with higher levels of knowledge agreed more often with the item that “using insect repellent could prevent the spread of Zika (p = 0.00)”. There were no differences between educational level, rural/urban, or belief a vaccine exists for any of the HBM constructs.
Item | Male (n = 85) | Female (n = 96) | P-Value | Rural (n = 87) | Urban (n = 94) | P-Value | Primary School (n = 41) | High School Graduate (n = 116) | P-Value |
Had heard of ZIKV | 76 (89.4) | 86 (90.0) | 1.00 | 78 (89.6) | 84 (89.3) | 0.95 | 37 (90.2) | 102 (87.9) | 0.69 |
First heard about ZIKV: | |||||||||
Internet (Y) | 17* (22) | 8* (9.3) | 0.02 | 12 (15.3) | 13 (15.4) | 0.99 | 8 (19.5) | 16 (15.6) | 0.42 |
Social media (Y) | 18 (23.6) | 26 (30.2) | 0.35 | 20 (25.6) | 24 (28.5) | 0.68 | 10 (27.2) | 26 (25.4) | 86 |
Doctor/Nurse (Y) | 2 (2.6) | 8 (8.3) | 0.11 | 8 (10.2) | 2 (2.4) | 0.05 | 5* (13.5) | 3* (2.9) | 0.03 |
Newspaper (Y) | 3 (3.4) | 1 (1.0) | 0.25 | 3 (3.8) | 1 (1.1) | 0.35 | 2 (5.4) | 2 (2.0) | 0.29 |
TV (Y) | 43 (57.0) | 44 (51.1) | 0.49 | 40 (51.2) | 47 (56.0) | 0.55 | 19 (51.3) | 56 (54.9) | 0.85 |
Radio (Y) | 4 (5.0) | 5 (5.8) | 0.88 | 7 (8.9) | 2 (2.3) | 0.09 | 3 (8.1) | 4 (3.9) | 0.38 |
Friend (Y) | 4 (5.0) | 2 (2.3) | 0.32 | 3 (3.8) | 3 (3.5) | 1.00 | 3 (7.3) | 2 (2.0) | 0.12 |
ZIKV transmitted by: | |||||||||
Mosquitos (T) | 71 (93.4) | 80 (93.0) | 0.92 | 72 (82.7) | 79 (94.0) | 0.66 | 35 (94.5) | 94 (92.1) | 0.62 |
Male Sexual Contact (T) | 6 (7.0) | 8 (8.3) | 0.75 | 5 (5.7) | 9 (9.6) | 0.33 | 4 (9.8) | 10 (8.6) | 1.00 |
Mother to Child (T) | 14 (16.4) | 14 (14.6) | 0.71 | 13 (14.9) | 15 (16.0) | 0.84 | 11* (26.8) | 14* (12.1) | 0.03 |
Blood transfusion (T) | 12 (14.1) | 17 (17.7) | 0.51 | 13 (14.9) | 16 (17.0) | 0.69 | 3 (7.3) | 21 (18.1) | 0.57 |
Coughing/sneezing (F) | 9 (10.6) | 3 (3.1) | 0.07 | 5 (5.7) | 7 (7.5) | 0.64 | 2 (4.9) | 9 (7.8) | 0.73 |
Vaccine (F) | 38 (44.7) | 43 (44.8) | 1.00 | 35 (40.2) | 46 (48.9) | 0.21 | 20 (48.8) | 50 (43.1) | 0.70 |
Preventing mosquito bites (T) | 49 (57.6) | 53 (55.2) | 0.71 | 46 (52.9) | 56 (59.6) | 0.31 | 22 (53.7) | 68 (58.6) | 0.43 |
Using condoms (T) | 9 (10.6) | 8 (8.3) | 0.60 | 4* (4.6) | 13* (13.8) | 0.04 | 5 (12.2) | 11 (9.5) | 0.66 |
Preventing pregnancy (T) | 5 (5.9) | 12 (12.5) | 0.13 | 7 (8.1) | 10 (10.6) | 0.54 | 7 (17.1) | 8 (6.9) | 0.06 |
ZIKV transmitted by day biting mosquitos (Y) | 17 (20.0) | 18 (18.75) | 0.85 | 20 (23.0) | 15 (16.0) | 0.21 | 7 (17.1) | 24 (20.7) | 0.60 |
Cases of ZIKV in Ecuador (Y) | 65 (76.5) | 70 (72.9) | 0.66 | 65 (74.7) | 70 (74.5) | 0.83 | 31 (75.6) | 85 (73.3) | 0.78 |
Know someone with ZIKV (Y) | 12 (14.1) | 11 (11.5) | 0.65 | 16* (18.4) | 7* (7.5) | 0.02 | 7 (17.1) | 12 (10.3) | 0.30 |
Bolded * p < 0.05 |
This pilot study was conducted to assess ZIKV-related knowledge and attitudes among adults in Ecuador using the framework of the HBM. At the time this study was conducted very few studies had assessed knowledge and attitudes of ZIKV. In this study (May 2016), nearly 90% of the Ecuadorian sample had heard of ZIKV, which is higher than in the Nigerian study [21] conducted in September 2016 (68.9%) and a study in the US in March 2016 (85%), but lower than in a follow-up nationally representative US sample (95.0%) conducted in September 2016 [21,23]. This finding is not surprising since the current ZIKV epidemic started in Brazil and began impacting South and Central American countries before North America. To date, only one human case of ZIKV has been detected in Nigeria [21].
While overall knowledge level regarding transmission of ZIKV by mosquitoes was quite high (83.4%), there were many misconceptions related to ZIKV transmission and prevention. Less than 25% (n = 35) of the participants who had heard of ZIKV knew ZIKV was transmitted via day biting mosquitoes, which was not assessed in other studies. If participants assume that the virus is transmitted via night biting mosquitoes (like malaria), then they may not be likely to take precautions during the day, including using bug spray, or wearing protective clothing. ZIKV is transmitted by the same mosquitoes as dengue and chikungunya; but participants were not aware that these bite during the day.
Even fewer of the participants knew that ZIKV could be transmitted sexually, consistent with previous studies in other countries [20,21,22,23,27]. Thus, few respondents understood that wearing condoms could prevent transmission. Participants may have believed they were protecting themselves from ZIKV via proper aforementioned preventive behaviors, but then acquired the virus through sexual activity. Condoms are available, but not highly used in Ecuador which is a predominantly Catholic country, even though the Pope condoned condom use to prevent ZIKV transmission [28]. Another barrier to condom use may be cost. Average condoms cost about $2.50 for a pack of 3; the average income for Ecuadorians is about $448 per month [29]. Female and male condoms are provided free of charge by the Ministry of Health in most of their public health centers and hospitals, however, participants need transportation and access to one of the health centers. Measures of behavior or intentions to perform prevention behaviors were not measured in this survey, only perceptions of self-efficacy for performing several prevention behaviors.
Finally, nearly half of the sample erroneously believed that a vaccine was able to prevent ZIKV. This may be because there was discussion early on about the creation of a vaccine on multiple media outlets in Ecuador, including the television and the Internet. We did not ask if they believed there was a vaccine that was developed and being withheld from them as some individuals in Africa and in the US believe has occurred with an HIV vaccine [30,31] or if they erroneously believed that a vaccine was developed and available for prevention.
Few of the respondents knew someone who had been infected with ZIKV. This is not surprising since all but two of the locations (Amazon region) were regions where ZIKV was not endemic. Data were collected as a part of a routine trip to Ecuador and the locations were selected well in advance of this study. If this study had been done along the coastal region, or in Manabi and Esmeraldas Provinces where the large magnitude earthquake occurred in April 2016, the results may have been different. Furthermore, only a couple thousand cases of ZIKV have been confirmed in Ecuador. Many people may have been unknowingly infected with ZIKV, so it is not surprising that there are a limited number of Ecuadorians that would know one of the confirmed cases.
The data collection location and the low number of cases of ZIKV may also account for the low levels of perceived susceptibility; only about half of the participants strongly agreed or agreed that they were at risk for contracting the disease, and less than one third of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they were at greater risk than others. Regardless of the health issues, perceived susceptibly is almost always ranked lower than severity because of unrealistic optimism, which occurs when people rate their own circumstances or perceived risk for getting a disease or condition as lower than others people with the same level of risk [32]. This unrealistic optimism has been shown to occur in other studies assessing the HBM constructs [32]. The majority of participants agreed that the consequences of ZIKV are severe, but the likelihood that it will they will contract it is low. The “unrealistic optimism” may be a factor in this study since many of the participants lived in areas where ZIKV was not transmitted.
Furthermore, a strong perception of severity existed in this sample despite the fact that ZIKV infection is mild and for most, asymptomatic. ZIKV is severe for pregnant women and their babies, which were not the target of this study. Future research should explore the reasons behind the perceptions of severity. Emerging threats are perceived as severe when they have visible symptoms and have severe consequences, which is not the case for most people who are infected with ZIKV.
This study is not without limitations. First and foremost, recruitment is subject to selection bias. It is possible that those participants who agreed to participate were inherently different than those who chose not to participate. We also did not track the number of individuals who refused to participate in the study. While it was apparent that individuals in the rural, indigenous areas, were more likely to refuse to participate, it is not clear as to why they refused at a higher rate. It might be that they did not understand the purpose of the study as it was also clear that survey research was not something that most Ecuadorians had experience with or that they may have had lower levels of literacy and/or distrust. Also, the items developed for this study were only face validated and not assessed for reliability. It is possible that we were assessing the content in a manner that was well understood in the Ecuadorian population. Time did not allow for a pilot sample to be conducted, a lesson learned for future studies. There also was a small sample size. Again, this was a result of multiple factors, including limited time for data collection and a study instrument that was too lengthy. In future studies, the number of items collected will be limited to ensure that we are able to collect from more participants in the same amount of time. Refusal rates should be tracked in future studies to ensure meaningful reporting. Despite these limitations, this study adds to the ZIKV literature.
There is a clear need for education about the transmission and prevention of ZIKV across Ecuador to dispel myths and improve understanding. High levels of self-efficacy for prevention behaviors for ZIKV combined with low perceived barriers in this community set the stage for effective educational interventions or health promotion campaigns that can ameliorate the knowledge deficits surrounding transmission and prevention. It is forecasted that ZIKV will remain endemic in Ecuador; therefore, it is imperative that educational interventions coupled with increased access to and availability of condoms, bug spray, and protective clothing are needed to reduce the incidence of ZIKV as its associated consequences. In the future, more research is needed to better understand the factors contributing to ZIKV transmission in Ecuador so that interventions can be designed to be responsive to the needs of individuals living in parts of Ecuador where ZIKV is endemic.
The authors do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose.
[1] | Atienza M, Aroca P (2013) Concentration and growth in Latin American countries. In: Cuadrado-Roura, J., Aroca, P. (eds) Regional Problems and Policies in Latin America. Advances in Spatial Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Adv in Spat Sci 127: 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39674-8_6 |
[2] |
Campolina-Diniz C, Vieira DJ (2016) Brazil: Accelerated metropolization and urban crisis. Area Dev Pol 1: 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/23792949.2016.1202085 doi: 10.1080/23792949.2016.1202085
![]() |
[3] | Santos M (2005) The Brazilian urbanization. São Paulo: EDUSP Press. Available from: https://www.athuar.uema.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/SANTOS-Milton.-A-urbaniza%C3%A7%C3%A3o-brasileira..pdf. |
[4] | Perlman JE (2020) Favela: four decades of transformations in Rio de Janeiro. 1 Ed., Rio de Janeiro: FGV Press. Available from: https://books.google.com.br/books?id = d7nPDwAAQBAJ. |
[5] | Meirelles R, Athayde C (2014) A country called favela: The biggest survey ever done on the Brazilian favela, São Paulo: Gente Press. Available from: http://journals.openedition.org/horizontes/1273. |
[6] | Gonçalves RS, Brum M, Amoroso M (2020) Thinking Rio's favelas: History and urban issues. 1 Ed., Rio de Janeiro: Pallas Press. |
[7] | Brum M (2019) Brief history of Rio's favelas: From origins to major events. In: Maia, R. Rio (Re)seen from its margins. Capital Letter, 108–135. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/38406504/Breve_Hist%C3%B3ria_das_Favelas_Cariocas_das_origens_aos_Grandes_Eventos_pdf. |
[8] |
Pilo F (2017) A socio-technical perspective to the right to the city: Regularizing electricity access in Rio de Janeiro's Favelas. Int J Urb Region Res 41: 396–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12489 doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12489
![]() |
[9] |
Pilo F (2019) Negotiating networked infrastructural inequalities: Governance, electricity access, and space in Rio de Janeiro. Environ Plan C Politics Space 39: 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654419861110 doi: 10.1177/2399654419861110
![]() |
[10] | Duren NL, Osório R (2020) Bairro: 10 years later. IDB monography, inter-American development bank. http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0002430 |
[11] | ANEEL (National Electric Energy Agency) Tarifa tocial de energia elétrica, 2020. Available from: https://www.aneel.gov.br/tarifa-social-baixa-renda. |
[12] | Pilo F (2016) Rio de Janeiro: Regularising favelas-energy consumption and the making of consumers into customers. In book: energy, power and protest on the urban grid, Rio de Janeiro: Routledge, 67–85. Available from: https://www.routledge.com/Energy-Power-and-Protest-on-the-Urban-Grid-Geographies-of-the-Electric/Luque-Ayala-Silver/p/book/9781472449009. |
[13] | Butera FM, Caputo P, Adhikaria RS, et al. (2019) Energy access in informal settlements. Results of a wide on site survey in Rio de Janeiro. Energy Policy 134: 110943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110943 |
[14] | UN Secretary-General (1987) World commission on environment and development. Available from: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/139811. |
[15] | United Nations Environment Programme (2009) Sustainable urban energy planning. A handbook for cities and towns in developing countries. Available from: https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/33074. |
[16] | ONU-Habitat (2012) Sustainable urban energy. Available from: https://unhabitat.org/sustainable-urban-energy. |
[17] | United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Available from: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda. |
[18] |
Jean W, Brasil Junior ACP (2022) Solar model for rural communities: analysis of impact of a grid-connected photovoltaic system in the brazilian semi-arid region. J Sustainable Dev Energy Water Environ Syst 10: 1090405. https://doi.org/10.13044/j.sdewes.d9.0405 doi: 10.13044/j.sdewes.d9.0405
![]() |
[19] |
Haarstad H, Wahne MW (2019) Are smart city projects catalyzing urban energy sustainability? Energy Policy 129: 918–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.001 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.001
![]() |
[20] |
Leeuwen RP, de Wit JB, Smit GJM (2017) Review of urban energy transition in the Netherlands and the role of smart energy management. Energy Convers Manage 150: 941–948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.05.081 doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2017.05.081
![]() |
[21] |
Broto VC, Stevens L, Ackom E, et al. (2017) A research agenda for people-centered approach to energy access in the urbanizing global south. Nat Energy 2: 776–779. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0007-x doi: 10.1038/s41560-017-0007-x
![]() |
[22] |
McCollun DL, Echeverri LG, Busch S, et al. (2018) Connecting the sustainable development goals by their energy inter-linkages. Environ Res Lett 13: 033006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaafe3 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaafe3
![]() |
[23] |
Carreón RJ, Worrell E (2018) Urban energy systems within the transition to sustainable development. A research agenda for urban metabolism. Resour Conserv Recycl 132: 258–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.004 doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.004
![]() |
[24] |
Wesly J, Brasil Junior AC, Frate CA, et al. (2020) Techno-economic analysis of a PV-wind-battery for a remote community in Haiti. Case Stud Chem Environ Eng 2: 100044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2020.100044 doi: 10.1016/j.cscee.2020.100044
![]() |
[25] | Bhuiyan MA, Zhang Q, Khare V, et al. (2022) Renewable energy consumption and economic growth nexus—A systematic literature review. Front Environ Sci 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.878394 |
[26] | Saqib A, Chan T, Mikhaylov A, et al. (2021) Are the responses of sectoral energy imports asymmetric to exchange rate volatilities in pakistan? Evidence from recent foreign exchange regime. Front Energy Res 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.614463 |
[27] |
Wang S, Cao T, Chen B (2017) Urban energy-water nexus based on modified input-output analysis. Appl Energy 196: 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.02.011 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.02.011
![]() |
[28] |
Wang X, Guo M, Koppelaar RHE, et al. (2018) A Nexus approach for sustainable urban energy-water-waste systems planning and operation. Environ Sci Technol 52: 3257–3266. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b04659 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b04659
![]() |
[29] |
Razmjoo AA, Sumper A, Davarpanah A (2020) Energy sustainability analysis based on SDG's for developing countries. Energy Sources A: Recovery Util Environ Eff 42: 1041–1056. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2019.1602215 doi: 10.1080/15567036.2019.1602215
![]() |
[30] |
Klopp JM, Petretta DL (2017) The urban sustainable development goal: indicators, complexity and politics of measuring cities. Cities 63: 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.12.019 doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.12.019
![]() |
[31] |
Valencia SC, Simon D, Croese S, et al. (2019) Adapting the sustainable development goals and the new urban agenda to the city level: Initial reflections from a comparative research project. Int J Urban Sustainable Dev 11: 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2019.1573172 doi: 10.1080/19463138.2019.1573172
![]() |
[32] | Silva MA (2020) The electrification and modernization of the territory of Rio de Janeiro. Espaço e Economia 20. https://doi.org/10.4000/espacoeconomia.17457 |
[33] | Cabral LMM (2016) Electricity and urbanization in the city of Rio de Janeiro, In: memória da eletricidade, 1 Eds., Rio de Janeiro. Available from: https://minerva.ufrj.br/F/?func = direct & doc_number = 000879124 & local_base = UFR01. |
[34] | Labussière O, Nadaï A (2018) Energy transitions: A socio-technical inquire (energy, climate and the environment), Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77025-3 |
[35] | Emery FE (1972) System thinking, 2 Eds., Texas: Penguin Books. |
[36] | Castro NJ, Miranda M, Vardeiro P (2019) Non-technical losses in electricity distribution: The case of Light. Rio de Janeiro: Publit Sol. Available from: https://www.ie.ufrj.br/images/IE/livros/livrolight.pdf. |
[37] | Tavarez FR (2017) Gatos in the slums: Electrification, spatial segregation and disintegration of everyday life in Rio's favelas. Electrification and the territory. history and future. Available from: https://www.ub.edu/geocrit/Electr-y-territorio/FelipeTavares.pdf. |
[38] |
Ventura LO, Melo JF, Padilha-Feltrin A, et al. (2020) A new way for comparing solutions to non-technical electricity losses in south America. Util Policy 67: 101113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2020.101113 doi: 10.1016/j.jup.2020.101113
![]() |
[39] | Ali ABMS (2013) Smart grids: Opportunities, developments, and trends. Green energy and technology, 1 Eds., Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5210-1 |
[40] | Daneshvar M, Asadi S, Mohammadi-Ivatloo B (2021) Overview of the grid modernization and smart grids, In: grid modernization—future energy network infrastructure, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64099-6_1 |
[41] |
Skjø lsvold TM, Ryghaug M, Berker T (2015) A traveler's guide to smart grids and the social sciences. Energy Res Soc Sci 9: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.08.017 doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2015.08.017
![]() |
[42] |
Lovell H (2019) The promise of smart grids. Int J Justice Sustainability 4: 580–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1422117 doi: 10.1080/13549839.2017.1422117
![]() |
[43] |
de Wildt TE, Chappin EJL, van de Kaa G, et al. (2019) Conflicting values in the smart electricity grid a comprehensive overview. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 111: 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.005 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.005
![]() |
[44] |
Kumar A (2019) Beyond technical smartness: Rethinking the development and implementation of sociotechnical smart grids in India. Energy Res Soc Sci 49: 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.10.026 doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2018.10.026
![]() |
[45] | Welton S (2017) Grid modernization and energy poverty. N C J Law Tech 18: 565–608. Available from: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/223234335.pdf. |
[46] | Mengolini A, Vasiljevska J (2013) The social dimension of smart grids: Consumer, community, society. Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport, Publications Office, 2014. https://doi.org/10.2790/94972 |
[47] |
Wolsink M (2020) Distributed energy systems as commnin goods: Socio-political acceptance of renewables in intelligent microgrids. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 127: 109841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109841 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.109841
![]() |
[48] |
Muriel B, Perera ATD, Hammin C, et al. (2020) Improving energy sustainability of suburban areas by using distributed energy system: A case study. Proceedings 58: 06918. https://doi.org/10.3390/WEF-06918 doi: 10.3390/WEF-06918
![]() |
[49] | Jean W, Brasil Junior ACP (2020). Simulation of a photovoltaic system for a community in Haiti. enerLAC 4: 44–55. Available from: https://enerlac.olade.org/index.php/ENERLAC/article/view/123. |
[50] |
Garcez CG (2017) Distributed electricity generation in Brazil: An analysis of policy context, design and impact. Util Policy 49: 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2017.06.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jup.2017.06.005
![]() |
[51] |
Faria JH, Trigoso FBM, Cavalcanti JAM (2017) Review of distributed generation with photovoltaic grid connected systems in Brazil: Challenges and prospects. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 75: 469–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.076 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.076
![]() |
[52] |
Jean W, Arcela A, van Els RH, et al. (2021) A GIS for rural electrification strategies in the brazilian amazon. Pap Appl Geogr 7: 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/23754931.2020.1870539 doi: 10.1080/23754931.2020.1870539
![]() |
[53] | Chaves NHR (2020) Solar energy in the Rio de Janeiro slums: successful initiatives? Case repository economic commission for latin america and the caribbean (CEPAL). Available from: https://archivo.cepal.org/pdfs/bigpushambiental/Caso37-EnergiaSolarNasFavelasRJ.pdf. |
[54] | Pinho LLR (2017) Democratization of access to solar energy and community empowerment: The case of the Santa Marta community. Proceedings of the XIV National Meeting of Engineering and Social Development: Energy, environment and sustainability. 14: 1. Available from: https://anais.eneds.org.br/index.php/eneds/article/view/483. |
[55] | Moon B (2018) A study of solar PV potential to ensure reliable supply of affordable electricity in favelas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Msc Thesis. Available from: https://repositorioinstitucional.uaslp.mx/xmlui/handle/i/4543. |
[56] | Lima DSC (2015) Solar power versus electricity theft in Brazilian favelas, MSC environment and resource management-research project. Vriej University Amsterdam. Available from: https://energypedia.info/images/d/d9/Diego_Costa_-_Solar_power_versus_electricity_theft_in_Brazilian_favelas.pdf. |
[57] | Reolon C (2019) Renewable energy in urban low-income communities. Case study of Santa Marta, Rio de Janeiro, master thesis, IST-Lisboa. Available from: https://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2117/332137. |
[58] | Garcez CG (2015) Distributed generation policies and sustainability of the electrical system. Thesis (doctorate in sustainable development)—University of Brasília. Available from: https://repositorio.unb.br/handle/10482/20988. |
[59] | Dantas SG, Pompermayer FM (2018) Economic viability of photovoltaic systems in Brazil and possible effects on the electricity sector, text for discussion 2388, IPEA (institute of applied economic reasearch). Available from: https://portalantigo.ipea.gov.br/agencia/images/stories/PDFs/TDs/td_2388.pdf. |
[60] | Caramizaru A, Uihlein A (2020) Energy communities: An overview of energy and social innovation, policy report joint research centre (JRC)-European Commission. Available from: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC119433. |
1. | Guo Hong, Ethical Considerations on Some Issues of Medical Artificial Intelligence Applications, 2022, 2582-7367, 10.37191/Mapsci-2582-7367-3(3)-051 | |
2. | Chao Shen, Pengyu He, Zhenyu Song, Yimeng Zhang, Cognitive disparity in online rumor perception: a group analysis during COVID-19, 2024, 24, 1471-2458, 10.1186/s12889-024-20549-y | |
3. | Jinlong Fu, Yan Song, Yike Feng, Rumor Spreading Model Considering the Roles of Online Social Networks and Information Overload, 2023, 11, 2169-3536, 123947, 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3328396 |
Construct items | N |
% |
Perceived Susceptibility | ||
I am at risk for getting ZIKV | 77 | 47.5 |
I am at greater risk of getting ZIKV than other people | 40 | 24.7 |
Perceived Severity | ||
ZIKV may cause serious health problems | 126 | 77.8 |
ZIKV complications are dangerous | 120 | 74.1 |
If I contracted the ZIKV, it could spread to other family members | 92 | 56.8 |
Perceived Benefits to Preventing Zika Virus | ||
Preventing mosquito bites can prevent ZIKV infection | 108 | 66.7 |
Wearing bug spray can prevent ZIKV infection | 118 | 72.8 |
Wearing long shirts and pants can prevent ZIKV infection | 103 | 63.6 |
Wearing condoms can prevent ZIKV transmission to another person | 45 | 27.8 |
Perceived Barriers to Preventing Zika Virus | ||
I am generally opposed to using condoms | 30 | 18.5 |
Bug spray is expensive | 37 | 22.8 |
Bug spray is easy to obtain in my town | 119 | 73.5 |
Condoms are expensive | 29 | 17.9 |
Condoms are easy to obtain in my town | 116 | 71.6 |
Wearing long sleeves and pants is easy for me to do | 91 | 56.2 |
Cues to Action | ||
The media impacts my decision to take action to prevent getting ZIKV | 111 | 68.5 |
My doctor/nurse impacts my decision to take action to prevent ZIKV | 91 | 56.2 |
My friends/family impact my decision to take action to prevent ZIKV | 92 | 56.8 |
Self-Efficacy | ||
I am confident that I can prevent getting ZIKV | 104 | 64.2 |
I am confident I can wear bug spray | 122 | 75.3 |
I am confident I can wear long sleeves/pants | 126 | 77.8 |
I am confident I can wear condoms | 104 | 64.2 |
I am confident I can avoid pregnancy | 110 | 67.9 |
*Equals Agree and Strongly Agree combined. Note: Wearing long clothing can prevent Zika X2(1, N=140) 6.72, p = 0.01 - rural urban. T-test results by Knowledge Level and Individual Health Belief Items indicate If I get ZIKV, it could spread to others in my family (t(149) = −2.34, p = 0.02) and Using insect repellent could prevent the spread of Zika (t(152) = 2.85, p = 0.00) were statistically significant. |
Construct | Gender | Rural/Urban | Education | Vaccine Exists | Knowledge Level |
Perceived Susceptibility | t(152) = 1.13, p = 0.225 | t(152) = −1.15, p = 0.25 | t(130) = 0.45, p = 0.66 | t(152) = 0.79, p = 0.64 | t(151) = −0.37, p = 0.97 |
Perceived Severity | t(150) = −1.73, p = 0.09 | t(150) = 0.08, p = 0.93 | t(129) = −0.78, p = 0.44 | t(150) = 1.34, p = 0.18 | t(149) = −2.17, p = 0.03* |
Perceived Benefits | t(147) = −0.37, p = 0.71 | t(147) = 0.05, p = 0.96 | t(1287) = 1.19, p = 0.24 | t(147) = 0.35, p = 0.73 | t(146) = 2.12, p = 0.04* |
Perceived Barriers | t(140) = −0.36, p = 0.72 | t(140) = 1.26, p = 0.21 | t(121) = 0.04, p = 0.97 | t(140) = 0.53, p = 0.60 | t(139) = .17, p = 0.87 |
Cues to Action | t(151) = −1.98, p = 0.04* | t(151) = 1.29, p = 0.20 | t(129) = 0.48, p = 0.63 | t(151) = 0.36, p = 0.72 | t(150) = −0.12, p = 0.91 |
Self-Efficacy | t(144) = −0.33, p = 0.74 | t(144) = −0.69, p = 0.49 | t(122) = 0.27, p = 0.79 | t(144) = −0.19, p = 0.86 | t(143) = 0.05, p = 0.96 |
Characteristics | N | % |
Average age | 33.4 (SD ± 10.90) | |
Range 18-65 | ||
Gender | ||
Female | 96 | 53.0 |
Male | 85 | 47.0 |
Pregnant | 3 | |
Relationship | ||
Married | 110 | 60.8 |
Single | 70 | 39.2 |
Educational Level | ||
Primary school only | 41 | 22.7 |
Higher education | 69 | 38.1 |
Location | ||
Saraguro | 43 | 24.0 |
Loja | 44 | 24.0 |
Tena | 30 | 17.0 |
Carimanga | 30 | 16.0 |
Otavalo | 14 | 11.0 |
Mach | 20 | 8.0 |
Item | Male (n = 85) | Female (n = 96) | P-Value | Rural (n = 87) | Urban (n = 94) | P-Value | Primary School (n = 41) | High School Graduate (n = 116) | P-Value |
Had heard of ZIKV | 76 (89.4) | 86 (90.0) | 1.00 | 78 (89.6) | 84 (89.3) | 0.95 | 37 (90.2) | 102 (87.9) | 0.69 |
First heard about ZIKV: | |||||||||
Internet (Y) | 17* (22) | 8* (9.3) | 0.02 | 12 (15.3) | 13 (15.4) | 0.99 | 8 (19.5) | 16 (15.6) | 0.42 |
Social media (Y) | 18 (23.6) | 26 (30.2) | 0.35 | 20 (25.6) | 24 (28.5) | 0.68 | 10 (27.2) | 26 (25.4) | 86 |
Doctor/Nurse (Y) | 2 (2.6) | 8 (8.3) | 0.11 | 8 (10.2) | 2 (2.4) | 0.05 | 5* (13.5) | 3* (2.9) | 0.03 |
Newspaper (Y) | 3 (3.4) | 1 (1.0) | 0.25 | 3 (3.8) | 1 (1.1) | 0.35 | 2 (5.4) | 2 (2.0) | 0.29 |
TV (Y) | 43 (57.0) | 44 (51.1) | 0.49 | 40 (51.2) | 47 (56.0) | 0.55 | 19 (51.3) | 56 (54.9) | 0.85 |
Radio (Y) | 4 (5.0) | 5 (5.8) | 0.88 | 7 (8.9) | 2 (2.3) | 0.09 | 3 (8.1) | 4 (3.9) | 0.38 |
Friend (Y) | 4 (5.0) | 2 (2.3) | 0.32 | 3 (3.8) | 3 (3.5) | 1.00 | 3 (7.3) | 2 (2.0) | 0.12 |
ZIKV transmitted by: | |||||||||
Mosquitos (T) | 71 (93.4) | 80 (93.0) | 0.92 | 72 (82.7) | 79 (94.0) | 0.66 | 35 (94.5) | 94 (92.1) | 0.62 |
Male Sexual Contact (T) | 6 (7.0) | 8 (8.3) | 0.75 | 5 (5.7) | 9 (9.6) | 0.33 | 4 (9.8) | 10 (8.6) | 1.00 |
Mother to Child (T) | 14 (16.4) | 14 (14.6) | 0.71 | 13 (14.9) | 15 (16.0) | 0.84 | 11* (26.8) | 14* (12.1) | 0.03 |
Blood transfusion (T) | 12 (14.1) | 17 (17.7) | 0.51 | 13 (14.9) | 16 (17.0) | 0.69 | 3 (7.3) | 21 (18.1) | 0.57 |
Coughing/sneezing (F) | 9 (10.6) | 3 (3.1) | 0.07 | 5 (5.7) | 7 (7.5) | 0.64 | 2 (4.9) | 9 (7.8) | 0.73 |
Vaccine (F) | 38 (44.7) | 43 (44.8) | 1.00 | 35 (40.2) | 46 (48.9) | 0.21 | 20 (48.8) | 50 (43.1) | 0.70 |
Preventing mosquito bites (T) | 49 (57.6) | 53 (55.2) | 0.71 | 46 (52.9) | 56 (59.6) | 0.31 | 22 (53.7) | 68 (58.6) | 0.43 |
Using condoms (T) | 9 (10.6) | 8 (8.3) | 0.60 | 4* (4.6) | 13* (13.8) | 0.04 | 5 (12.2) | 11 (9.5) | 0.66 |
Preventing pregnancy (T) | 5 (5.9) | 12 (12.5) | 0.13 | 7 (8.1) | 10 (10.6) | 0.54 | 7 (17.1) | 8 (6.9) | 0.06 |
ZIKV transmitted by day biting mosquitos (Y) | 17 (20.0) | 18 (18.75) | 0.85 | 20 (23.0) | 15 (16.0) | 0.21 | 7 (17.1) | 24 (20.7) | 0.60 |
Cases of ZIKV in Ecuador (Y) | 65 (76.5) | 70 (72.9) | 0.66 | 65 (74.7) | 70 (74.5) | 0.83 | 31 (75.6) | 85 (73.3) | 0.78 |
Know someone with ZIKV (Y) | 12 (14.1) | 11 (11.5) | 0.65 | 16* (18.4) | 7* (7.5) | 0.02 | 7 (17.1) | 12 (10.3) | 0.30 |
Bolded * p < 0.05 |
Construct items | N |
% |
Perceived Susceptibility | ||
I am at risk for getting ZIKV | 77 | 47.5 |
I am at greater risk of getting ZIKV than other people | 40 | 24.7 |
Perceived Severity | ||
ZIKV may cause serious health problems | 126 | 77.8 |
ZIKV complications are dangerous | 120 | 74.1 |
If I contracted the ZIKV, it could spread to other family members | 92 | 56.8 |
Perceived Benefits to Preventing Zika Virus | ||
Preventing mosquito bites can prevent ZIKV infection | 108 | 66.7 |
Wearing bug spray can prevent ZIKV infection | 118 | 72.8 |
Wearing long shirts and pants can prevent ZIKV infection | 103 | 63.6 |
Wearing condoms can prevent ZIKV transmission to another person | 45 | 27.8 |
Perceived Barriers to Preventing Zika Virus | ||
I am generally opposed to using condoms | 30 | 18.5 |
Bug spray is expensive | 37 | 22.8 |
Bug spray is easy to obtain in my town | 119 | 73.5 |
Condoms are expensive | 29 | 17.9 |
Condoms are easy to obtain in my town | 116 | 71.6 |
Wearing long sleeves and pants is easy for me to do | 91 | 56.2 |
Cues to Action | ||
The media impacts my decision to take action to prevent getting ZIKV | 111 | 68.5 |
My doctor/nurse impacts my decision to take action to prevent ZIKV | 91 | 56.2 |
My friends/family impact my decision to take action to prevent ZIKV | 92 | 56.8 |
Self-Efficacy | ||
I am confident that I can prevent getting ZIKV | 104 | 64.2 |
I am confident I can wear bug spray | 122 | 75.3 |
I am confident I can wear long sleeves/pants | 126 | 77.8 |
I am confident I can wear condoms | 104 | 64.2 |
I am confident I can avoid pregnancy | 110 | 67.9 |
*Equals Agree and Strongly Agree combined. Note: Wearing long clothing can prevent Zika X2(1, N=140) 6.72, p = 0.01 - rural urban. T-test results by Knowledge Level and Individual Health Belief Items indicate If I get ZIKV, it could spread to others in my family (t(149) = −2.34, p = 0.02) and Using insect repellent could prevent the spread of Zika (t(152) = 2.85, p = 0.00) were statistically significant. |
Construct | Gender | Rural/Urban | Education | Vaccine Exists | Knowledge Level |
Perceived Susceptibility | t(152) = 1.13, p = 0.225 | t(152) = −1.15, p = 0.25 | t(130) = 0.45, p = 0.66 | t(152) = 0.79, p = 0.64 | t(151) = −0.37, p = 0.97 |
Perceived Severity | t(150) = −1.73, p = 0.09 | t(150) = 0.08, p = 0.93 | t(129) = −0.78, p = 0.44 | t(150) = 1.34, p = 0.18 | t(149) = −2.17, p = 0.03* |
Perceived Benefits | t(147) = −0.37, p = 0.71 | t(147) = 0.05, p = 0.96 | t(1287) = 1.19, p = 0.24 | t(147) = 0.35, p = 0.73 | t(146) = 2.12, p = 0.04* |
Perceived Barriers | t(140) = −0.36, p = 0.72 | t(140) = 1.26, p = 0.21 | t(121) = 0.04, p = 0.97 | t(140) = 0.53, p = 0.60 | t(139) = .17, p = 0.87 |
Cues to Action | t(151) = −1.98, p = 0.04* | t(151) = 1.29, p = 0.20 | t(129) = 0.48, p = 0.63 | t(151) = 0.36, p = 0.72 | t(150) = −0.12, p = 0.91 |
Self-Efficacy | t(144) = −0.33, p = 0.74 | t(144) = −0.69, p = 0.49 | t(122) = 0.27, p = 0.79 | t(144) = −0.19, p = 0.86 | t(143) = 0.05, p = 0.96 |
Characteristics | N | % |
Average age | 33.4 (SD ± 10.90) | |
Range 18-65 | ||
Gender | ||
Female | 96 | 53.0 |
Male | 85 | 47.0 |
Pregnant | 3 | |
Relationship | ||
Married | 110 | 60.8 |
Single | 70 | 39.2 |
Educational Level | ||
Primary school only | 41 | 22.7 |
Higher education | 69 | 38.1 |
Location | ||
Saraguro | 43 | 24.0 |
Loja | 44 | 24.0 |
Tena | 30 | 17.0 |
Carimanga | 30 | 16.0 |
Otavalo | 14 | 11.0 |
Mach | 20 | 8.0 |
Item | Male (n = 85) | Female (n = 96) | P-Value | Rural (n = 87) | Urban (n = 94) | P-Value | Primary School (n = 41) | High School Graduate (n = 116) | P-Value |
Had heard of ZIKV | 76 (89.4) | 86 (90.0) | 1.00 | 78 (89.6) | 84 (89.3) | 0.95 | 37 (90.2) | 102 (87.9) | 0.69 |
First heard about ZIKV: | |||||||||
Internet (Y) | 17* (22) | 8* (9.3) | 0.02 | 12 (15.3) | 13 (15.4) | 0.99 | 8 (19.5) | 16 (15.6) | 0.42 |
Social media (Y) | 18 (23.6) | 26 (30.2) | 0.35 | 20 (25.6) | 24 (28.5) | 0.68 | 10 (27.2) | 26 (25.4) | 86 |
Doctor/Nurse (Y) | 2 (2.6) | 8 (8.3) | 0.11 | 8 (10.2) | 2 (2.4) | 0.05 | 5* (13.5) | 3* (2.9) | 0.03 |
Newspaper (Y) | 3 (3.4) | 1 (1.0) | 0.25 | 3 (3.8) | 1 (1.1) | 0.35 | 2 (5.4) | 2 (2.0) | 0.29 |
TV (Y) | 43 (57.0) | 44 (51.1) | 0.49 | 40 (51.2) | 47 (56.0) | 0.55 | 19 (51.3) | 56 (54.9) | 0.85 |
Radio (Y) | 4 (5.0) | 5 (5.8) | 0.88 | 7 (8.9) | 2 (2.3) | 0.09 | 3 (8.1) | 4 (3.9) | 0.38 |
Friend (Y) | 4 (5.0) | 2 (2.3) | 0.32 | 3 (3.8) | 3 (3.5) | 1.00 | 3 (7.3) | 2 (2.0) | 0.12 |
ZIKV transmitted by: | |||||||||
Mosquitos (T) | 71 (93.4) | 80 (93.0) | 0.92 | 72 (82.7) | 79 (94.0) | 0.66 | 35 (94.5) | 94 (92.1) | 0.62 |
Male Sexual Contact (T) | 6 (7.0) | 8 (8.3) | 0.75 | 5 (5.7) | 9 (9.6) | 0.33 | 4 (9.8) | 10 (8.6) | 1.00 |
Mother to Child (T) | 14 (16.4) | 14 (14.6) | 0.71 | 13 (14.9) | 15 (16.0) | 0.84 | 11* (26.8) | 14* (12.1) | 0.03 |
Blood transfusion (T) | 12 (14.1) | 17 (17.7) | 0.51 | 13 (14.9) | 16 (17.0) | 0.69 | 3 (7.3) | 21 (18.1) | 0.57 |
Coughing/sneezing (F) | 9 (10.6) | 3 (3.1) | 0.07 | 5 (5.7) | 7 (7.5) | 0.64 | 2 (4.9) | 9 (7.8) | 0.73 |
Vaccine (F) | 38 (44.7) | 43 (44.8) | 1.00 | 35 (40.2) | 46 (48.9) | 0.21 | 20 (48.8) | 50 (43.1) | 0.70 |
Preventing mosquito bites (T) | 49 (57.6) | 53 (55.2) | 0.71 | 46 (52.9) | 56 (59.6) | 0.31 | 22 (53.7) | 68 (58.6) | 0.43 |
Using condoms (T) | 9 (10.6) | 8 (8.3) | 0.60 | 4* (4.6) | 13* (13.8) | 0.04 | 5 (12.2) | 11 (9.5) | 0.66 |
Preventing pregnancy (T) | 5 (5.9) | 12 (12.5) | 0.13 | 7 (8.1) | 10 (10.6) | 0.54 | 7 (17.1) | 8 (6.9) | 0.06 |
ZIKV transmitted by day biting mosquitos (Y) | 17 (20.0) | 18 (18.75) | 0.85 | 20 (23.0) | 15 (16.0) | 0.21 | 7 (17.1) | 24 (20.7) | 0.60 |
Cases of ZIKV in Ecuador (Y) | 65 (76.5) | 70 (72.9) | 0.66 | 65 (74.7) | 70 (74.5) | 0.83 | 31 (75.6) | 85 (73.3) | 0.78 |
Know someone with ZIKV (Y) | 12 (14.1) | 11 (11.5) | 0.65 | 16* (18.4) | 7* (7.5) | 0.02 | 7 (17.1) | 12 (10.3) | 0.30 |
Bolded * p < 0.05 |