南京市农村地区健康教育在鼠类化学防治过程中的作用

doi:10.11853/j.issn.1003.8280.2022.04.027

中国媒介生物学及控制杂志 ›› 2022, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (4): 590-595.DOI: 10.11853/j.issn.1003.8280.2022.04.027

南京市农村地区健康教育在鼠类化学防治过程中的作用

张艳¹, 王冲¹, 陈旭鹏¹, 陈斌², 陈航¹, 陆墨原¹, 吴起新¹, 王白茹¹, 宋丙栋¹, 张守刚¹

1. 南京市疾病预防控制中心消毒与病媒生物防制科/健康教育科, 江苏南京 210000;
2. 南京市高淳区疾病预防控制中心, 江苏南京 211300

收稿日期:2021-12-31 出版日期:2022-08-20 发布日期:2022-08-12
通讯作者: 张守刚,E-mail:344529315@qq.com
作者简介:张艳,女,硕士,医师,主要从事病媒防制工作,E-mail:zhangyan871207@163.com
基金资助:
南京市医学科技发展重点项目（ZKX19049）

The effect of health education in chemical control of rodents in rural areas in Nanjing, Jiangsu province, China

ZHANG Yan¹, WANG Chong¹, CHEN Xu-peng¹, CHEN Bin², CHEN Hang¹, LU Mo-yuan¹, WU Qi-xin¹, WANG Bai-ru¹, SONG Bing-dong¹, ZHANG Shou-gang¹

1. Department of Disinfection and Vector Control/Department of Health Education, Nanjing Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, Jangsu 210000, China;
2. Gaochun Center for Disease Control and Prevention of Nanjing, Nanjing, Jiangsu 211300, China

Received:2021-12-31 Online:2022-08-20 Published:2022-08-12
Supported by:
Nanjing Medical Science and Technology Development Key Project (No. ZKX19049)

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的分析健康教育在鼠类化学防治过程中的作用，为制定有效灭鼠防控措施提供科学依据。方法选择南京市高淳区上城村作为实验组，实施健康教育联合毒饵站灭鼠，南京市高淳区禅林村作为对照组，实施单独毒饵站灭鼠措施，分析2个自然村2021年3－12月农户关于鼠类认知情况变化、鼠盗食量、鼠密度变化，比较健康教育干预前后对鼠类化学防治效果的影响。结果上城村31人在健康教育前，对鼠类一般知识、疾病传播和行为认知方面了解的分别为22、17和14人，健康教育后，人数分别达到29、25和23人，差异有统计学意义（χ²=5.415，P=0.043；χ²=4.724，P=0.030；χ²=5.429，P=0.020）。健康教育前，上城村3次鼠捕获率分别是3.00%、2.22%和2.52%，禅林村分别为1.72%、2.16%和2.45%，差异无统计学意义（χ²=0.344，P=0.557）；健康教育后，上城村3次鼠捕获率分别是0.41%、2.12%和0.85%，禅林村在同一时间分别为2.09%、1.82%和3.93%，差异有统计学意义（χ²=4.409，P=0.036）。上城村健康教育后较健康教育前的鼠捕获率呈显著降低趋势，降幅达56.37%，差异有统计学意义（χ²=4.139，P=0.048），禅林村在相同时间鼠捕获率无明显变化（χ²=0.384，P=0.599）。鼠日平均盗食量有2个高峰期，分别是4月中旬和11月中旬。总体上，上城村鼠日平均盗食量高于禅林村。结论农村地区鼠类化学防治联合健康教育灭鼠效果优于单独使用化学防治措施。

关键词: 健康教育, 毒饵站, 灭鼠, 捕获率, 南京

Abstract: Objective To investigate the effect of health education in the chemical control of rodents, and to provide a scientific basis for formulating effective rodent control measures in Nanjing, Jiangsu province, China. Methods Shangcheng and Chanlin villages in Gaochun district, Nanjing, China were selected as intervention group (bait stations combined with health education for rodent control) and control group (bait stations alone for rodent control), respectively. The changes in farmers' awareness about rodents, bait consumption, and rodent densities in the two villages from March to December 2021 were analyzed to compare the effects of health education intervention on chemical control of rodents. Results Among 31 participants in Shangcheng village, the numbers of farmers with an awareness of general knowledge about rodents, rodent-borne diseases, control measures, and behaviors before and after health education were 22 versus 29 (χ²=5.415,P=0.043), 17 versus 25 (χ²=4.724, P=0.030), and 14 versus 23 (χ²=5.429, P=0.020), respectively, all showing statistically significant increases after health education except for knowledge about control measures. Before health education, the rodent capture rates (three times) in Shangcheng village were 3.00%, 2.22%, and 2.52%, respectively, while the capture rates in Chanlin village were 1.72%, 2.16%, and 2.45%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference between the two villages (χ²=0.344, P=0.557). The capture rates in Shangcheng village (0.41%, 2.12%, and 0.85%, respectively) after health education, and those in Chanlin village (2.09%, 1.82%, and 3.93%, respectively) at the same time showed a statistically significant difference (χ²=4.409,P=0.036). The capture rate of Shangcheng village was statistically decreased by 56.37% after health education (χ²=4.139, P=0.048), while no statistically significant change was observed in that of Chanlin village at the same time (χ²=0.384, P=0.599). Rodents' average daily bait consumption peaked in mid-April and mid-November, and generally, it was higher in Shangcheng village than in Chanlin village. Conclusion Chemical control combined with health education is more effective for rodent control than chemical control alone in rural areas.

Key words: Health education, Bait station, Rodent control, Capture rate, Nanjing

中图分类号:

S443

张艳, 王冲, 陈旭鹏, 陈斌, 陈航, 陆墨原, 吴起新, 王白茹, 宋丙栋, 张守刚. 南京市农村地区健康教育在鼠类化学防治过程中的作用[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2022, 33(4): 590-595.

ZHANG Yan, WANG Chong, CHEN Xu-peng, CHEN Bin, CHEN Hang, LU Mo-yuan, WU Qi-xin, WANG Bai-ru, SONG Bing-dong, ZHANG Shou-gang. The effect of health education in chemical control of rodents in rural areas in Nanjing, Jiangsu province, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Vector Biology and Control, 2022, 33(4): 590-595.

参考文献

[1] Zheng WQ, Liu YQ, Tao HY, et al. First molecular evidence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in rodent populations of Nanchang, China[J]. Jpn J Infect Dis, 2018, 71(2):129-133. DOI:10.7883/yoken.JJID.2017.301.
[2] Damin-Pernik M, Espana B, Lefebvre S, et al. Management of rodent populations by anticoagulant rodenticides:Toward third-generation anticoagulant rodenticides[J]. Drug Metab Dispos, 2017, 45(2):160-165. DOI:10.1124/dmd.116.073791.
[3] Zhang S, Wang SW, Yin WW, et al. Epidemic characteristics of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome in China, 2006-2012[J]. BMC Infect Dis, 2014, 14(1):384. DOI:10.1186/1471-2334-14-384.
[4] Waasila J, Nisha N, Shan N, et al. Rodent control in urban communities in Johannesburg, South Africa:from research to action[J]. Int J Environ Health Res, 2013, 23(6):474-483. DOI:10.1080/09603123.2012.755156.
[5] Sara AB, Stefan AL. What do they know? Comparing public knowledge and opinions about rodent management to the expectations of pest controllers[J]. Animals (Basel), 2021, 11(12):3429-3441. DOI:10.3390/ani11123429.
[6] Bueno AF, Panizzi AR, Hunt TE, et al. Challenges for adoption of integrated pest management (IPM):The soybean example[J]. Neotrop Entomol, 2021, 50(1):5-20. DOI:10.1007/s13744-020-00792-9.
[7] Maurício OC, Maria SNE, Fernanda MCF, et al. Health education in Aedes aegypti:Case study[J]. Rev Bras Enferm, 2020, 73(3):e20180487. DOI:10.1590/0034-7167-2018-0487.
[8] 马涛, 谢国祥, 徐庆, 等. 2011-2016年南京市肾综合征出血热流行特征分析[J]. 现代预防医学, 2017, 44(23):4231-4234, 4247. Ma T, Xie GX, Xu Q, et al. Epidemiological characteristics of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome, Nanjing, 2011-2016[J]. Mod Prev Med, 2017, 44(23):4231-4234, 4247. (in Chinese)
[9] 陈锋岭, 孙聪, 徐晓光, 等. 0.005%氟鼠灵稻谷毒饵在居民区灭鼠应用研究[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2020, 31(4):494-496, 507. DOI:10.11853/j.issn.1003.8280.2020.04.025. Chen FL, Sun C, Xu XG, et al. Application of 0.005% flocoumafen rice bait for rodent control in residential areas[J]. Chin J Vector Biol Control, 2020, 31(4):494-496, 507. DOI:10.11853/j.issn.1003.8280.2020.04.025.(in Chinese)
[10] Walther B, Geduhn A, Schenke D, et al. Baiting location affects anticoagulant rodenticide exposure of non-target small mammals on farms[J]. Pest Manag Sci, 2021, 77(2):611-619. DOI:10.1002/ps.5987.
[11] Nakagawa L, de Masi E, Narciso E, et al. Palatability and efficacy of bromadiolone rodenticide block bait previously exposed to environmental conditions[J]. Pest Manag Sci, 2015, 71(10):1414-1418. DOI:10.1002/ps.3944.
[12] Meerburg BG, van Gent-Pelzer MP, Schoelitsz B, et al. Distribution of anticoagulant rodenticide resistance in Rattus norvegicus in the Netherlands according to Vkorc1 mutations[J]. Pest Manag Sci, 2014, 70(11):1761-1766. DOI:10.1002/ps.3809.
[13] Ma XH, Wang DW, Li N, et al. Low warfarin resistance frequency in Norway rats in two cities in China after 30 years of usage of anticoagulant rodenticides[J]. Pest Manag Sci, 2018, 74(11):2555-2560. DOI:10.1002/ps.5040.
[14] 周良才, 吴太平, 梁建生, 等. 健康教育对社区鼠类防制的干预效果评估研究[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2013, 24(4):336-339. DOI:10.11853/j.issn.1003.4692.2013.04.016. Zhou LC, Wu TP, Liang JS, et al. Study on intervention effect of health education on rodent control in community[J]. Chin J Vector Biol Control, 2013, 24(4):336-339. DOI:10.11853/j.issn.1003.4692.2013.04.016.(in Chinese)
[15] Maxine G, Hadjila I, Cecile M, et al. The waiting room:Vector for health education? The general practitioner^,s point of view[J]. BMC Res Notes, 2012, 18(5):511-516. DOI:10.1186/1756-0500-5-511.
[16] de Oliveira Chaves M, do Socorro Nantua Evangelista M, de Castro Fernandes FM. Health education in Aedes aegypti:Case study[J]. Rev Bras Enferm, 2020, 73(3):e20180487. DOI:10.1590/0034-7167-2018-0487.

南京市农村地区健康教育在鼠类化学防治过程中的作用

The effect of health education in chemical control of rodents in rural areas in Nanjing, Jiangsu province, China

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	郭郁, 武庆锐, 刘美德, 刘园, 闫帅, 李若曦. 北京市某大型农贸市场灭鼠毒饵筛选及灭鼠效果评价[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2022, 33(4): 521-524.
[2]	马德珍, 明明, 陆华. 光催化诱蚊灯与BG-trap捕蚊器诱蚊效果比较研究[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2020, 31(6): 685-689.
[3]	陈锋岭, 孙聪, 徐晓光, 金云峰. 0.005%氟鼠灵稻谷毒饵在居民区灭鼠应用研究[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2020, 31(4): 494-496.
[4]	王峰, 刘宏波, 刘国平, 王旭, 郭醉元, 任清明. 吉林省东部某日本遗弃化学武器作业区鼠形动物调查及灭鼠效果观察[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2020, 31(2): 231-233.
[5]	李林, 范俊杰, 刘国军, 孙坚毅. 山东省潍坊市2016年农村居民防鼠灭鼠知晓情况调查[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2019, 30(3): 350-353.
[6]	孙燕群, 张守刚, 陆墨原, 李成国, 赵姗姗, 徐斐. 不同人群蚊媒防制知识健康教育相关研究进展[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2019, 30(1): 111-115.
[7]	刘正祥, 高子厚, 段兴德, 梁云, 张正飞, 段炳华, 浦恩念, 苏超, 李玉琼. 云南省野鼠鼠疫疫区处置中溴敌隆灭鼠效果评价[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2018, 29(2): 172-174.
[8]	殷为申, 蔡恩茂, 冷培恩, 郑翚, 何晓岚. 新型环保杀鼠剂胆钙化醇现场灭鼠效果观察[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2018, 29(2): 200-201.
[9]	张懿晖, 李林臣, 牛艳芬, 刘合智, 胡乐乐, 陈凯乐, 史献明, 高宝萍, 李林军. 运用格林模式设计张家口市鼠疫防治健康教育计划[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2017, 28(6): 612-614.
[10]	康立, 蔡婷, 彭建生, 张伟, 李国珍, 韩思齐, 田占峰. 新型灭鼠盒灭鼠效果观察[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2017, 28(3): 296-297.
[11]	贵有军, 艾山·艾比布勒, 廖力夫, 麦丽开·阿不力米提, 燕顺生. 多种方法现场灭鼠效果观察[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2017, 28(2): 188-190.
[12]	张懿晖, 王志锋, 李林臣, 牛艳芬, 刘合智, 胡乐乐, 陈凯乐, 史献明, 高宝萍. 河北省康保县鼠疫防控健康教育需求调查[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2017, 28(1): 72-74.
[13]	曲宝泉, 张世水, 宫学诗, 景晓, 许德江, 王学军, 刘峰, 赵志刚, 孙林, 付颖, 张奎卫, 康殿民. 两种考核灭鼠效果方法的对比研究[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2015, 26(5): 519-521.
[14]	胡美娟, 应金枝. 浙江省永康市1950－2013年疟疾监测与防制成效分析[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2015, 26(3): 314-316.
[15]	汪莉萍, 苏瑾, 张元财, 俞丽娜, 张蓉. 下水道采用竹节法灭鼠效果探索[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2015, 26(3): 330-332.