Volume 18, Number 4—April 2012
Policy Review
Lessons Learned during Dengue Outbreaks in the United States, 2001–2011
Table
Lessons learned during US dengue outbreaks, 2001–2011*
Location, year | Lessons learned |
---|---|
Hawaii, 2001 | Populations are not completely homogeneous, and messages should be tailored to specific locales. |
Tourism concerns must be balanced with public health response. | |
Community engagement activities are palatable to the public when nonpunitive, actionable initiatives are undertaken by public health agencies. | |
A communication study validates the community engagement approach, with substantial numbers of residents aware of the outbreak and those taking actions performing the correct action. | |
A lack of in-state testing capacity delays confirmation of the outbreak. | |
Although the Aedes albopictus mosquito is a competent vector, its involvement may limit this outbreak in a rural Hawaii setting, especially with prompt outbreak control efforts. | |
Brownsville, Texas, 2005 | Nearby foci of endemicity make dengue a continual threat, including the possibility of dengue hemorrhagic fever. |
Involving CDC/BIDS facilitates fast identification of the index case. | |
Pre-outbreak awareness of and preparation for the potential threat of dengue enhances the ability to respond to an actual outbreak. | |
Florida, 2009–2011 | An aggressive multimodal campaign engages the public. |
Door-to-door vector control activities are essential; the ability to inspect property without homeowner permission improves coverage. | |
Clear communication with tourism officials diminishes the possibility of opposing viewpoints. |
*CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; BIDS, Border Infectious Disease Surveillance.