<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|>You are an expert on climate change, human mobility and migration. Answer the question truthfully.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|>Here are the title and abstract of a scientific paper probably related to climate change, human mobility and migration..
Title:"Comparative evaluation of community interventions for the immigrant population of Latin American origin at risk for Chagas disease in the city of Barcelona."
Abstract:"Introduction Chagas disease presents bio-psycho-social and cultural determinants for infected patients, their family members, close friends, and society. For this reason, diagnosis and treatment require an active approach and an integral focus, so that we can prevent the disease from creating stigma and exclusion, as is actively promoting access to diagnosis, medical attention and social integration Methodology The study was conducted in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain) from 2004 to 2017. After an increased detection rates of CHD in our region, the process of construction of community strategies started (2004-2013). Different community interventions with informational, educational, and communication components were designed, developed, implemented, and evaluated. The results of the evaluation helped to determine which intervention should be prioritized: 1) workshop; 2) community event; 3) in situ screening. Afterwards, those strategies were implemented (2014-2017). Results Each of the three strategies resulted in a different level of coverage, or number of people reached. Thein situscreening interventions reached the highest coverage (956 persons, 58.98%).Clear differences exist (p-value<0.001) between the three strategies regarding the percentage of screenings and diagnoses carried out. The largest number was in thein situscreening intervention, with a total of 830 persons screened despite the greatest number of diagnoses was among the workshop participants (33 persons, 20.75% of those screened). The prevalence of infection found is similar among the three strategies, ranging from 16.63% to 22.32% of the screened patients (p-value= 0.325). Conclusions The results of the study show that community interventions seem to be necessary to improve access to diagnosis and treatment of CHD in the area of Barcelona. They also show which strategy is the most appropriate based on the detected needs of the community, the proposed objectives of the intervention, and the given socio-temporal context.."
I have six questions you need to answer.
Q1: Is this article is about 'human migration mobility': 1 = yes; 0 = no. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q2: What drivers of migration and mobility does the article study? 0 = 'other', 1 = 'climate', 2 = 'environment', 3 = 'economic', 4 = 'conflict', 5 = 'political', 6 = 'social', 7 = 'family'. Answer with a number or a sequence of numbers separated by commas. Do not give a textual explanation. 

Q3: What is the overall sentiment of the article?:0 = 'neutral', 1 = 'negative', 2 = 'positive'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q4: What type of climate or environmental keywords are explicitly mentioned?:  0 = 'none', 1 = 'algal blooms', 2 = 'infestation', 3 = 'infectious diseases', 4 = 'ocean acidification', 5 = 'sea ice', 6 = 'acid rain', 7 = 'drought', 8 = 'cold wave', 9 = 'heat wave', 10 = 'glacial', 11 = 'wildfire', 12 = 'air pollution', 13 = 'biodiversity loss', 14 = 'coastal erosion', 15 = 'land degradation', 16 = 'deforestation', 17 = 'desertification', 18 = 'water pollution', 19 = 'diebacks', 20 = 'permafrost loss', 21 = 'sand mining', 22 = 'sea level rise', 23 = 'earthquake', 24 = 'tsunami', 25 = 'volcanic', 26 = 'flood', 27 = 'avalanche', 28 = 'landslide', 29 = 'downburst', 30 = 'thunderstorm', 31 = 'sandstorm', 32 = 'haze', 33 = 'storm', 34 = 'cyclone', 35 = 'blizzard', 36 = 'hail', 37 = 'snow', 38 = 'tornado', 39 = 'wind', 40 = 'hurricane', 41 = 'typhoon', 42 = 'other'. Answer with a number or a sequence of numbers separated by commas. Do not give a textual explanation. 

Q5: What discipline does the article belong to?: 0 = 'other', 1 = 'social science', 2 = 'natural science', 3 = 'arts and humanities', 4 = 'multidiscipline and interdiscipline'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q6: Does the article apply quantitative and/or statistical analysis?: 0 = 'no', 1 = 'yes'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Use the following template: 

Q1 = [];
Q2 = [];
Q3 = [];
Q4 = [];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [].<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|>Answer:
Q1 = [1];
Q2 = [6,7];
Q3 = [2];
Q4 = [];
Q5 = [1];
Q6 = [1].
Comparative evaluation of community interventions for the immigrant population of Latin American origin at risk for Chagas disease in the city of Barcelona
Introduction Chagas disease presents bio-psycho-social and cultural determinants for infected patients, their family members, close friends, and society. For this reason, diagnosis and treatment require an active approach and an integral focus, so that we can prevent the disease from creating stigma and exclusion, as is actively promoting access to diagnosis, medical attention and social integration Methodology The study was conducted in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain) from 2004 to 2017. After an increased detection rates of CHD in our region, the process of construction of community strategies started (2004-2013). Different community interventions with informational, educational, and communication components were designed, developed, implemented, and evaluated. The results of the evaluation helped to determine which intervention should be prioritized: 1) workshop; 2) community event; 3) in situ screening. Afterwards, those strategies were implemented (2014-2017). Results Each of the three strategies resulted in a different level of coverage, or number of people reached. Thein situscreening interventions reached the highest coverage (956 persons, 58.98%).Clear differences exist (p-value<0.001) between the three strategies regarding the percentage of screenings and diagnoses carried out. The largest number was in thein situscreening intervention, with a total of 830 persons screened despite the greatest number of diagnoses was among the workshop participants (33 persons, 20.75% of those screened). The prevalence of infection found is similar among the three strategies, ranging from 16.63% to 22.32% of the screened patients (p-value= 0.325). Conclusions The results of the study show that community interventions seem to be necessary to improve access to diagnosis and treatment of CHD in the area of Barcelona. They also show which strategy is the most appropriate based on the detected needs of the community, the proposed objectives of the intervention, and the given socio-temporal context.