Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28162129›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology and infection2017

Assessment of community awareness and risk perceptions of zoonotic causes of abortion in cattle at three selected livestock-wildlife interface areas of Zimbabwe.

M Ndengu, M DE Garine-Wichatitsky, D M Pfukenyi, M Tivapasi, B Mukamuri, G Matope

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

M NdenguDepartment of Clinical Veterinary Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science,University of Zimbabwe,P.O. Box MP 167, Mount Pleasant, Harare,Zimbabwe.
M DE Garine-WichatitskyResearch Platform Production and Conservation in Partnership,P.O. Box 1378, Harare,Zimbabwe.
D M PfukenyiDepartment of Clinical Veterinary Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science,University of Zimbabwe,P.O. Box MP 167, Mount Pleasant, Harare,Zimbabwe.
M TivapasiDepartment of Clinical Veterinary Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science,University of Zimbabwe,P.O. Box MP 167, Mount Pleasant, Harare,Zimbabwe.
B MukamuriResearch Platform Production and Conservation in Partnership,P.O. Box 1378, Harare,Zimbabwe.
G MatopeResearch Platform Production and Conservation in Partnership,P.O. Box 1378, Harare,Zimbabwe.
University of Zimbabwe · ZW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A study was conducted to assess the awareness of cattle abortions due to brucellosis, Rift Valley fever (RVF) and leptospirosis, and to compare frequencies of reported abortions in communities living at the periphery of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area in southeastern Zimbabwe. Three study sites were selected based on the type of livestock-wildlife interface: porous livestock-wildlife interface (unrestricted); non-porous livestock-wildlife interface (restricted by fencing); and livestock-wildlife non-interface (totally absent or control). Respondents randomly selected from a list of potential cattle farmers (N = 379) distributed at porous (40·1%), non-interface (35·5%) and non-porous (26·4%), were interviewed using a combined close- and open-ended questionnaire. Focus group discussions were conducted with 10-12 members of each community. More abortions in the last 5 years were reported from the porous interface (52%) and a significantly higher per cent of respondents from the porous interface (P < 0·05) perceived wildlife as playing a role in livestock abortions compared with the other interface types. The odds of reporting abortions in cattle were higher in large herd sizes (odds ratio (OR) = 2·6; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·5-4·3), porous (OR = 1·9; 95% CI 1·0-3·5) and non-porous interface (OR = 2·2; 95% CI 1·1-4·3) compared with livestock-wildlife non-interface areas. About 21·6% of the respondents knew brucellosis as a cause of abortion, compared with RVF (9·8%) and leptospirosis (3·7%). These results explain to some extent, the existence of human/wildlife conflict in the studied livestock-wildlife interface areas of Zimbabwe, which militates against biodiversity conservation efforts. The low awareness of zoonoses means the public is at risk of contracting some of these infections. Thus, further studies should focus on livestock-wildlife interface areas to assess if the increased rates of abortions reported in cattle may be due to exposure to wildlife or other factors. The government of Zimbabwe needs to launch educational programmes on public health awareness in these remote areas at the periphery of transfrontier conservation areas where livestock-wildlife interface exists to help mitigate the morbidity and mortality of people from some of the known zoonotic diseases.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAbortion, VeterinaryAnimal HusbandryAnimalsAnimals, WildBrucellosisCattleCattle DiseasesDisease NotificationGoat DiseasesGoatsHumansLeptospirosisPrevalenceRift Valley FeverSheepBrucellosisLeptospirosislivestock-wildlife interfaceRift Valley Fever

Identifiers

PMID28162129
PMCPMC9203295
OpenAlexW2586204973

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.