Tracking the mutual shaping of the technical and social dimensions of solar-powered mosquito trapping systems (SMoTS) for malaria control on Rusinga Island, western Kenya

Particle and Fibre Toxicology

Cees Leeuwis¹  Willem Takken⁵  Wolfgang Richard Mukabana²  Margaret Ayugi⁴  Jane Alaii³  Alexandra Hiscox⁵  Prisca A Oria⁴ 

[1] Knowledge Technology and Innovation Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands;School of Biological Sciences, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya;Context Factor Solutions, Nairobi, Kenya;International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology, Nairobi, Kenya;Laboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands

关键词: Kenya;    Community;    Feedback;    Mosquito trap;    Solar;    System innovation;    Socio-technical;    Co-evolution;    Malaria;   

Others  :  1149294
DOI  :  10.1186/s13071-014-0523-5

 received in 2014-09-16, accepted in 2014-11-05,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

There has been increasing effort in recent years to incorporate user needs in technology design and re-design. This project employed a bottom-up approach that engaged end users from the outset. Bottom-up approaches have the potential to bolster novel interventions and move them towards adaptive and evidence-based strategies. The present study concerns an innovative use of solar-powered mosquito trapping systems (SMoTS) to control malaria in western Kenya. Our paper highlights the co-dependence of research associated with the development of the SMoTS technology on one hand and research for enhancing the sustainable uptake of that very same intervention within the community on the other.

Methods

During the pre-intervention year, we examined the design, re-design and piloting of a novel technology to generate lessons for malaria elimination on Rusinga Island. Initial ideas about many technological necessities were evaluated and re-designed following feedback from various sources, including technical and social research as well as broader interactions with the social environment. We documented the interlocking of the multiple processes and activities that took place through process observation and document reviews. We analysed the data within the conceptual framework of system innovation by identifying mutual shaping between technical and social factors.

Results

Our findings illustrate how various project stakeholders including project staff, collaborators, donor, and community members simultaneously pursued interdependent technological transformations and social interests. In the ongoing process, we observed how partial outcomes in the technological domain influenced social events at a later phase and vice versa.

Conclusions

Looking at malaria intervention projects employing novel technologies as niches that may evolve towards system innovation, helps to reveal interrelations between the various technical and social aspects. Revealing these interrelations requires a different role for research and different perspective on innovation where innovation is more than the technical aspects. This approach therefore requires that research is designed in a way that enables obtaining feedback from both aspects.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Oria et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Fig. 3.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]MacKenzie D, Wajcman J: The Social Shaping of Technology. Open University Press, Buckingham [England]; Philadelphia; 1999.
• [2]Schot J, Geels FW: Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technol Anal Strateg 2008, 20(5):537-554.
• [3]Geels F: Co-evolution of technology and society: the transition in water supply and personal hygiene in the Netherlands (1850¿1930) a case study in multi-level perspective. Technol Soc 2005, 27(3):363-397.
• [4]Reis EC, Goepp JG, Katz S, Santosham M: Barriers to use of oral rehydration therapy. Pediatrics 1994, 93(5):708-711.
• [5]Coreil J, Genece E: Adoption of oral rehydration therapy among Haitian mothers. Soc Sci Med 1988, 27(1):87-96.
• [6]Green EC: Diarrhea and the social marketing of oral rehydration salts in Bangladesh. Soc Sci Med 1986, 23(4):357-366.
• [7]Brieger WR, Ekanem OJ, Nwankwo E, Ezike VI, Robinson T, Sexton JD, Breman JG, Parker KA: Social and behavioural baseline for guiding implementation of an efficacy trial of insecticide impregnated bed nets for malaria control at nsukka. Nigeria Int Q Community Health Educ 1996, 16(1):47-61.
• [8]Mbonye AK, Neema S, Magnussen P: Perceptions on use of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in pregnancy and the policy implications for malaria control in Uganda. Health Policy 2006, 77(3):279-289.
• [9]Ansah EK, Gyapong JO, Agyepong IA, Evans DB: Improving adherence to malaria treatment for children: the use of pre-packed chloroquine tablets vs. chloroquine syrup. Trop Med Int Health 2001, 6(7):496-504.
• [10]van der Hoek W, Amerasinghe FP, Konradsen F, Amerasinghe PH: Characteristics of malaria vector breeding habitats in Sri Lanka: relevance for environmental management. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 1998, 29(1):168-172.
• [11]Ellis BR, Wilcox BA: The ecological dimensions of vector-borne disease research and control. Cad Saude Publica 2009, 25(Suppl 1):S155-S167.
• [12]Singh JA, Mills EJ: The abandoned trials of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV: what went wrong? PLoS Med 2005, 2(9):e234.
• [13]Geels FW: Technological Transitions and System Innovations: A co-evolutionary and Socio-Technical Analysis. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham; 2005.
• [14]Hofman PS, Elzen Boelie E, Geels Frank W: Sociotechnical scenarios as a new policy tool to explore system innovations: Co-evolution of technology and society in the Netherland¿s electricity domain. Innov Manag Policy Pract 2004, 6(23):344-360.
• [15]Wendy RA, Vanclay F, Aslin H: Technology assessment in social context: the case for a new framework for assessing and shaping technological developments. Impact Assess Project Appraisal 2010, 28(2):109-116.
• [16]Birn AE: Gates¿s grandest challenge: transcending technology as public health ideology. Lancet 2005, 366(9484):514-519.
• [17]A research agenda for malaria eradication: vector control PLoS Med 2011, 8:e1000401.
• [18]Allotey P, Reidpath DD, Ghalib H, Pagnoni F, Skelly WC: Efficacious, effective, and embedded interventions: implementation research in infectious disease control. BMC Public Health 2008, 8:343. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Thomas MB, Godfray HC, Read AF, van den Berg H, Tabashnik BE, van Lenteren JC, Waage JK, Takken W: Lessons from agriculture for the sustainable management of malaria vectors. PLoS Med 2012, 9(7):e1001262.
• [20]Molyneux DH: ¿Neglected¿ diseases but unrecognised successes¿challenges and opportunities for infectious disease control. Lancet 2004, 364(9431):380-383.
• [21]Hiscox A, Maire N, Kiche I, Silkey M, Homan H, Oria P, Mweresa C, Otieno B, Ayugi M, Bousema T, Sawa P, Alaii J, Smith T, Leeuwis C, Mukabana WR, Takken W: The SolarMal project: innovative mosquito trapping technology for malaria control. Malar J 2012, 11(Suppl 1):O45. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Geels FW: Understanding the Dynamics of Technological Transitions: A co-Evolutionary and Socio-Technical Analysis. Twente University Press, The Netherlands; 2002.
• [23]Geels F, Raven R: Non-linearity and expectations in niche-development trajectories: ups and downs in Dutch biogas development (1973¿2003). Technol Anal Strateg 2006, 18(3¿4):375-392.
• [24]Elzen B, Geels FW, Green K: System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2004.
• [25]Rip A, Kemp R: Technological Change. In Human Choice and Climate Change. Edited by Rayner S, Malone EL. Battell Press, Columbus; 1998.
• [26][http://alexandria.tue.nl/repository/books/612843.pdf] webcite Strategic niche management as an operational tool for sustainable innovation: guidelines for practice. []
• [27]Geels FW: Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res Policy 2002, 31(8¿9):1257-1274.
• [28]Opiyo P, Mukabana WR, Kiche I, Mathenge E, Killeen GF, Fillinger U: An exploratory study of community factors relevant for participatory malaria control on Rusinga Island, western Kenya. Malar J 2007, 6:48. BioMed Central Full Text
• [29]Kaneko S, Mushinzimana E, Karama M: Demographic Surveillance System (DSS) in Suba District. Kenya Trop Med Health 2007, 35(35):37-40.
• [30]Mukabana WR, Mweresa CK, Otieno B, Omusula P, Smallegange RC, van Loon JJ, Takken W: A novel synthetic odorant blend for trapping of malaria and other African mosquito species. J Chem Ecol 2012, 38(3):235-244.
• [31]Hiscox A, Otieno B, Kibet A, Mweresa CK, Omusula P, Geier M, Rose A, Mukabana WR, Takken W: Development and optimization of the Suna trap as a tool for mosquito monitoring and control. Malar J 2014, 13(1):257. BioMed Central Full Text
• [32]Menger DJ, van Loon J, Takken W: Assessing the efficacy of candidate mosquito repellents against the background of an attractive source that mimics a human host. Med Vet Entomol 2014. doi:10.1111/mve.12061.
• [33]Turner SL, Li N, Guda T, Githure J, Carde RT, Ray A: Ultra-prolonged activation of CO2-sensing neurons disorients mosquitoes. Nature 2011, 474(7349):87-91.
• [34]Mukabana WR, Mweresa CK, Omusula P, Orindi BO, Smallegange RC, van Loon JJ, Takken W: Evaluation of low density polyethylene and nylon for delivery of synthetic mosquito attractants. Parasit Vectors 2012, 5:202. BioMed Central Full Text
• [35]Mweresa CK: Odour-Based Strategies for Surveillance and Behavioural Disruption of Host-Seeking Malaria and Other Mosquitoes. Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen; 2014.
• [36]Feenberg A: Alternative modernity: the technical turn in philosophy and social theory. University of California Press, Berkeley; 1995.
• [37]van Mierlo B, Arkesteijn M, Leeuwis C: Enhancing the reflexivity of system innovation projects with system analyses. Am J Eval 2010, 31(2):143-161.
• [38]Macaulay AC, Commanda LE, Freeman WL, Gibson N, McCabe ML, Robbins CM, Twohig PL: Participatory research maximises community and lay involvement. North American primary care research group. Brit Med J 1999, 319(7212):774-778.
• [39]Wallerstein NB, Duran B: Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promot Pract 2006, 7(3):312-323.
• [40]McKnight JL: Health and empowerment. Can J Public Health 1985, 76(Suppl 1):37-38.
• [41]MacQueen KM, McLellan E, Metzger DS, Kegeles S, Strauss RP, Scotti R, Blanchard L, Trotter RT 2nd: What is community? An evidence-based definition for participatory public health. Am J Public Health 2001, 91(12):1929-1938.
• [42]Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB: Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health 1998, 19:173-202.
• [43]Morin SF, Morfit S, Maiorana A, Aramrattana A, Goicochea P, Mutsambi JM, Robbins JL, Richards TA: Building community partnerships: case studies of community advisory boards at research sites in Peru, Zimbabwe, and Thailand. Clin Trials 2008, 5(2):147-156.
• [44]Melton GB, Levine RJ, Koocher GP, Rosenthal R, Thompson WC: Community consultation in socially sensitive research. Lessons from clinical trials of treatments for AIDS. Am Psychol 1988, 43(7):573-581.