目的研究在做好外环境灭鼠的基础上进入非物业管理居民住宅及小经营户干预灭鼠的控制效果。方法在渣家社区开展现场研究;外环境鼠洞、普通地面、下水道、化粪池及垃圾通道采用以前研究的方法灭鼠;在居委会办公室放置免费鼠药及灭鼠宣传单;居民住宅及小经营户采用逐户入户调查,免费送药灭鼠,并宣传灭鼠方法。不对拒绝服务的住宅和经营户及已经有PCO公司承包的经营户进行干预。结果外环境灭鼠取得同以前研究一样的灭鼠效果。全社区非物业居民区有2 380户居民居住,其中1 925户可以进入,占80.9%。入户干预前337户居民户有家栖鼠,侵害率为17.5%,5次覆盖干预后有96户居民户有鼠,侵害率为5%,干预灭效为71.5%。入户干预前全社区1楼家栖鼠侵害率为25.3%,其他楼层侵害率为16.6%,其差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。各楼层干预灭鼠效果58.1%～100%,楼层高度与灭效相关性无统计学意义。灭效<40%的6栋居民楼全部在卫生条件差的集贸片区。223户小经营户全部能够进入,进入率高于居民区,其差异有统计学意义(P<0.000 1)。将7户拒绝服务及已有PCO公司承包的经营户视为对照,干预前有88户经营户有鼠,侵害率为40.7%。其中涉及食品及与食品无关的经营户分别为92户和124户,侵害率分别为44.6%和37.9%,4次覆盖干预后,侵害率降为5.4%和0,灭效分别为87.8%和100%。结论居民住宅进入困难,政府财力有限时不宜普遍采取进入居民户干预灭鼠措施。小经营户较易进入,干预灭鼠效果较好,适合在创建国家卫生城市时由政府出资承包灭鼠。 Objective To study the control effects of non-property management residential houses and small-scale commercial households intervening rodent control on the basis of good external environment rodent control. Methods Field research was carried out in the community of slag community. Rodent exteriors, common ground, sewers, septic tanks and rubbish passage were used to rodent off in the previous research methods. Free rat poison and rodenticide leaflets were placed in the neighborhood committees. Residential buildings and small Business households using household-by-household survey, free drug delivery rodent control, and publicity rodent control methods. Do not intervene in denial of service residential and business households and already have PCO contracted business households to intervene. As a result, rodent control in the external environment achieved the same anti-rodent effect as previous studies. There are 2 380 households living in non-residential neighborhoods in the whole community, of which 1,925 households can enter, accounting for 80.9%. Before the intervention, 337 households had domestic animals, with a rate of 17.5%. After 5 interventions, 96 households had rats, a rate of 5% and an intervention of 71.5%. Before the intervention, the damage rate of domestic habitat on the first floor of domestic community was 25.3% and that of other floors was 16.6%. The difference was statistically significant (P <0.01). Stratagem intervened in the control effect of 58.1% to 100%, the floor height and the effect of extinction was not statistically significant. Out of effect <40% of the 6 residential buildings in poor sanitation and trade area. All of the 223 small business operators were able to enter, and the entry rate was higher than that of residential areas. The difference was statistically significant (P <0.0001). The 7 denial of service and the existing PCO contracted business households as a control, before the intervention of 88 households operating a rat, the infringement rate was 40.7%. Among them, 92 households and 124 households involved in food and non-food related businesses respectively, with the infringement rates of 44.6% and 37.9% respectively. After four coverage interventions, the infringement rate was reduced to 5.4% and 0, respectively, with 87.8% and 100%. Conclusions Residents’ dwellings are difficult to enter, and it is inappropriate for them to take general measures to intervene in rodent control when they have limited financial resources. Small business households easier to enter, intervene rodent control better, suitable for the creation of a national health city funded by the government contracted to eradicate rats.