Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28010906›Full record

ArticlePreventive veterinary medicine2017

Zoonotic disease risk perceptions in the British veterinary profession.

Charlotte Robin, Judy Bettridge, Fiona McMaster

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive veterinary medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Risk Factors forVector borne and zoonotic diseases (Larchmont, N.Y.) · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Charlotte RobinDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Institute of Infection and Global Health, School of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston, CH64 7TE, United Kingdom; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit, University of Liverpool, Ronald Ross Building, Liverpool, L69 7BE, United Kingdom. Electronic address: charlotte.robin@liverpool.ac.uk.
Judy BettridgeDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Institute of Infection and Global Health, School of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston, CH64 7TE, United Kingdom; International Livestock Research Institute, Old Naivasha Road, PO Box 30709-00100, Nairobi, Kenya.
Fiona McMasterDepartment of Public Health, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge, CB1 1PT, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In human and veterinary medicine, reducing the risk of occupationally-acquired infections relies on effective infection prevention and control practices (IPCs). In veterinary medicine, zoonoses present a risk to practitioners, yet little is known about how these risks are understood and how this translates into health protective behaviour. This study aimed to explore risk perceptions within the British veterinary profession and identify motivators and barriers to compliance with IPCs. A cross-sectional study was conducted using veterinary practices registered with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Here we demonstrate that compliance with IPCs is influenced by more than just knowledge and experience, and understanding of risk is complex and multifactorial. Out of 252 respondents, the majority were not concerned about the risk of zoonoses (57.5%); however, a considerable proportion (34.9%) was. Overall, 44.0% of respondents reported contracting a confirmed or suspected zoonoses, most frequently dermatophytosis (58.6%). In veterinary professionals who had previous experience of managing zoonotic cases, time or financial constraints and a concern for adverse animal reactions were not perceived as barriers to use of personal protective equipment (PPE). For those working in large animal practice, the most significant motivator for using PPE was concerns over liability. When assessing responses to a range of different "infection control attitudes", veterinary nurses tended to have a more positive perspective, compared with veterinary surgeons. Our results demonstrate that IPCs are not always adhered to, and factors influencing motivators and barriers to compliance are not simply based on knowledge and experience. Educating veterinary professionals may help improve compliance to a certain extent, however increased knowledge does not necessarily equate to an increase in risk-mitigating behaviour. This highlights that the construction of risk is complex and circumstance-specific and to get a real grasp on compliance with IPCs, this construction needs to be explored in more depth.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthRisk AssessmentPersonal Protective EquipmentUnited KingdomVeterinariansInfection control practicesPersonal protective equipmentPublic healthRisk perceptionsVeterinary professionZoonoses

Identifiers

PMID28010906
PMCPMC7126003

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.