Lived in the same city as their previous residence, 13.68 had moved from a rural area of the city to their current location, and 6.13 had lived in another municipality. The average number of inhabitants per household was four (std. dev. = 2) (Table 1). When inquiring about the number of members per family, we identified 14,702 individuals, 53.68 of them females. And 7.43 of the total respondents reported that they had been diagnosed with dengue at least once in their lifeMultiple correspondence analysisWe used MCA to calculate a score for each KAP domain; the first dimension explained 56.13 , 79.66 , and 83.16 of the variances, respectively. The knowledge score had inertia of 0.01 (66 variables), the average score was 4.24 (std. dev. = 1), and the maximum value was 6.96. The attitude score had inertia of 0.122 (17 variables), with a mean score of 1.40 (std. dev. = 1), and the maximum value was 7.02. The practices score had inertia of 0.05, an average of 3.18 (std. dev. = 1.1), and a maximum value of 10.68 (Fig 1). As a result of the hierarchical cluster analysis, we determined five profiles in the knowledge domain according to the score generated using MCA. Profile 1 was characterized by participants not having heard about the disease and no reported knowledge about any feature of the means of transmission, clinical presentation, characteristics of Aedes aegypti, or prevention measures. Profile 2 entailed individuals who despite having heard about dengue and its means of transmission did not know about preventive measures or any other aspect of dengue or the vector. Profiles 3 and 4 included individuals who had knowledge about oviposition places (any stagnant water) and means of transmission. Additionally, individuals assigned to profile 4 named more constitutional symptoms, while those in profile 3 named more hemorrhagic symptoms (such as petechiae, epistaxis, etc.). Profile 5 was characterized by a high knowledge about the means of transmission and recognition of the white-striped legs of the vector (Table 2A). Attitude analysis generated nine profiles that did not show specific patterns per profile in the components of attitudes but could be grouped into two types: the individuals who thought that dengue is important to the community and to them, and the ones who did not. The remaining variables such as considering dengue as a serious disease and that dengue is an issue for the community and for them were evenly distributed across profiles. However, the first group AMG9810 chemical information accounted for 95 of the individuals, revealing that there was not enough variance between the groups. Moreover, no meaningful pattern was identified when categorizing into quartiles. For this reason, this domain was excluded from the subsequent phases of the analysis. Practices scores resulted in seven profiles. Profiles 1 and 2 were characterized by poor prevention practices against vectors, such as no coverage of water containers or water treatment, no education to other members of the household, and a low frequency of emptying water from containers more than seven days, regardless of its capacity. Persons who did not cover or add chemical substances to water containers, but who emptied water containers, were part of profile 3, and the best practices corresponded to profiles 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Table 2). The distribution of the profiles followed a descendant order, JWH-133 supplier whereby the smallest score was in profile 1 and the highest in profile 7; for this reason, practices scor.Lived in the same city as their previous residence, 13.68 had moved from a rural area of the city to their current location, and 6.13 had lived in another municipality. The average number of inhabitants per household was four (std. dev. = 2) (Table 1). When inquiring about the number of members per family, we identified 14,702 individuals, 53.68 of them females. And 7.43 of the total respondents reported that they had been diagnosed with dengue at least once in their lifeMultiple correspondence analysisWe used MCA to calculate a score for each KAP domain; the first dimension explained 56.13 , 79.66 , and 83.16 of the variances, respectively. The knowledge score had inertia of 0.01 (66 variables), the average score was 4.24 (std. dev. = 1), and the maximum value was 6.96. The attitude score had inertia of 0.122 (17 variables), with a mean score of 1.40 (std. dev. = 1), and the maximum value was 7.02. The practices score had inertia of 0.05, an average of 3.18 (std. dev. = 1.1), and a maximum value of 10.68 (Fig 1). As a result of the hierarchical cluster analysis, we determined five profiles in the knowledge domain according to the score generated using MCA. Profile 1 was characterized by participants not having heard about the disease and no reported knowledge about any feature of the means of transmission, clinical presentation, characteristics of Aedes aegypti, or prevention measures. Profile 2 entailed individuals who despite having heard about dengue and its means of transmission did not know about preventive measures or any other aspect of dengue or the vector. Profiles 3 and 4 included individuals who had knowledge about oviposition places (any stagnant water) and means of transmission. Additionally, individuals assigned to profile 4 named more constitutional symptoms, while those in profile 3 named more hemorrhagic symptoms (such as petechiae, epistaxis, etc.). Profile 5 was characterized by a high knowledge about the means of transmission and recognition of the white-striped legs of the vector (Table 2A). Attitude analysis generated nine profiles that did not show specific patterns per profile in the components of attitudes but could be grouped into two types: the individuals who thought that dengue is important to the community and to them, and the ones who did not. The remaining variables such as considering dengue as a serious disease and that dengue is an issue for the community and for them were evenly distributed across profiles. However, the first group accounted for 95 of the individuals, revealing that there was not enough variance between the groups. Moreover, no meaningful pattern was identified when categorizing into quartiles. For this reason, this domain was excluded from the subsequent phases of the analysis. Practices scores resulted in seven profiles. Profiles 1 and 2 were characterized by poor prevention practices against vectors, such as no coverage of water containers or water treatment, no education to other members of the household, and a low frequency of emptying water from containers more than seven days, regardless of its capacity. Persons who did not cover or add chemical substances to water containers, but who emptied water containers, were part of profile 3, and the best practices corresponded to profiles 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Table 2). The distribution of the profiles followed a descendant order, whereby the smallest score was in profile 1 and the highest in profile 7; for this reason, practices scor.
