Larvisida Dan Pupisida Isotearil Alkohol Etoksilat Terhadap Larva Dan Pupa Aedes Aegypti

Isotearil alkohol etoksilat merupakan larvasida yang bekerja sebagai barier fisik bagi pertumbuhan nyamuk. Larvasida ini membentuk lapisan yang sangat tipis (monomolecular surface film) dan menurunkan tegangan permukaan air. Permasalahan penelitian adalah bagaimana efektifitas isotearil alkohol etoksilat dalam membunuh larva dan pupa nyamuk vektor DBD Ae. aegypti. Tujuan penelitian ingin mengetahui efektifitas isotearil alkohol etoksilat dalam membunuh larva dan pupa nyamuk vektor DBD Ae. aegypti. Metode penelitian dengan pengujian efikasi isotearil alkohol etoksilat terhadap larva Aedes aegypti. Penelitian menggunakan 5 dosis, yaitu 0,5 ml/m2, 0,75 ml/m2, 1,0 ml/m2, 1,5 ml/m2 dan 2 ml/m2 serta kontrol. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa isotearil alkohol etoksilat selama satu minggu membunuh larva dan pupa Ae. aegypti ± 75%. Hasil analisis data menggunakan Anova menunjukkan tidak ada perbedaan jumlah kematian larva Ae. aegypti pada dosis yang berbeda (p=0,999). Simpulan penelitian adalah isotearil alkohol etoksilat dosis 0,5, 0,75, 1,0, 1,5 dan 2 ml/m2 kurang efektif digunakan untuk membunuh larva dan pupa nyamuk vektor DBD Ae. aegypti. Isotearil alcohol ethoxylate is larvicide who works as a physical barrier to mosquito\u27s growth. This larvicides form is very thin layer (monomolecular surface film) and lowers the surface tension of water. The research problem was how effectiveness of alcohol ethoxylate isotearil for killing mosquito larvae and pupae dengue vector Aedes aegypti. Research purpose was to determine the effectiveness of alcohol ethoxylate isotearil for killing larvae and pupae of dengue mosquitoes vector Aedes aegypti. Research methods used to test the efficacy of alcohol ethoxylate isotearil against Aedes aegypti larvae. Research used 5 doses, 0.5ml/m2, 0.75ml/m2, 1.0ml/m2, 1.5ml/m2, and 2ml/m2, and control. The results showed that the alcohol ethoxylate isotearil for a week to kill the larvae and pupae of Aedes aegypti ± 75 %. Data analysis using ANOVA showed no difference in mortality of larvae of Aedes aegypti at different doses (p=0.999). Therefore, isotearil alcohol ethoxylate dose of 0.5 , 0.75 , 1.0 , 1.5 and 2 ml/m2 were not effective used to kill mosquito larvae and pupae dengue vector Aedes aegypti

Comparison of screening and treatment cascade of outputs for pilot and rollout facilities.

<p>*Data on partner testing was inconsistently collected during rollout period.</p><p>Comparison of screening and treatment cascade of outputs for pilot and rollout facilities.</p

Changes in implementation methods from NGO-led RST pilot to MOH-led national RST rollout in Zambia.

<p>Changes in implementation methods from NGO-led RST pilot to MOH-led national RST rollout in Zambia.</p

Comparison of unit price and quantities of testing and treatment consumables used by facilities during pilot and rollout periods (2012 USD).

<p>*For facilities that reported both finger prick and venous blood draw methods for RST, we assumed 50% for each collection type</p><p>† Includes 10% supply wastage</p><p>^Higher cost vacutainer needle used during rollout period</p><p>Comparison of unit price and quantities of testing and treatment consumables used by facilities during pilot and rollout periods (2012 USD).</p

Economic cost drivers at surveyed pilot and rollout facilities.

<p>Central-level supervision (including QA/QC costs during pilot) accounted for over half of costs. Supervision, start-up, and health facility costs (supplies, personnel) were also major cost drivers.</p

Comparison of key characteristics of pilot versus rollout facilities.

<p>DTS = Dry Tube Specimen; FP = Finger Prick; KM = Kilometre; RHC = Rural Health Centre; UHC = Urban Health Centre; VNP = Venepuncture</p><p>Comparison of key characteristics of pilot versus rollout facilities.</p

Tornado diagram of one-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses of incremental cost per person screened at pilot and rollout facilities (2012 USD).

<p>A range of uncertain parameters was varied in one-way sensitivity analyses; parameters are displayed along the vertical axis. The solid vertical line indicates the base case incremental cost per person screened for syphilis ($3.19 during pilot;$11.16 during rollout). The horizontal bars represent the range of cost per person screened when varying the associated parameter from the low to high values indicated in parentheses. The best versus worst case scenario is a multivariate representation when all parameters are set to the low versus high values. During pilot and rollout, the cost per person screened was most highly sensitive to RST coverage among ANC attendees. FP = Finger prick; VP = Venepuncture.</p

Comparison of screening and treatment cascade of outputs for pilot and rollout facilities.

<p>*Data on partner testing was inconsistently collected during rollout period.</p><p>Comparison of screening and treatment cascade of outputs for pilot and rollout facilities.</p

Economic cost comparison between pilot and rollout facilities.

<p>*A formal QA/QC system was not established during the rollout; informal QA/QC activities were conducted within supervision-monitoring visits.</p><p>Economic cost comparison between pilot and rollout facilities.</p

Conceptual framework for the evaluation of RST pilot study and national programme in Zambia, adapted from Asiimwe et al (2012).

<p>Legend: In this context, these themes were understood to mean the following: Learnability: how easy or difficult it was for HCW to learn to perform the RST, perform it accurately and learn about quality control and quality assurance; Willingness: Willingness of the HCW to perform the RST, to take part in the cascaded training i.e. being trained by or training other colleagues; willingness to take part in supervisory and quality assurance activities; Suitability: HCWs’ belief the RST test was relevant to their work and could be successfully integrated into existing services; HCWs’ belief in the appropriateness of the current supporting components of the RST programme i.e. training, supervision and quality maintenance; Satisfaction: HCWs’ satisfaction with the test itself, its impact on workflow and satisfaction with the supporting components of the programme; Efficacy: Ability of HCWs to implement same-visit testing and treatment (STAT), to incorporate the test and to integrate quality assurance and quality control activities into their workflow; Effectiveness: How the organisational and systemic environment, including implementation of policy, guidelines, supply chain and other logistics, impacted on successful delivery of the programme. In addition, how the social context (the community, patients and their partners) influenced programme delivery.</p