Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30596719›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Managing the risk of Hendra virus spillover in Australia using ecological approaches: A report on three community juries.

Chris Degeling, Gwendolyn L Gilbert, Edward Annand, Melanie Taylor, Michael G Walsh, Michael P Ward, Andrew Wilson, Jane Johnson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Organising for One Health in a developing country.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Chris DegelingAustralian Centre for Health Engagement Evidence and Values, School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4279-3443
Gwendolyn L GilbertSydney Health Ethics, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Edward AnnandMarie Bashir Institute for Infectious Disease and Biosecurity, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Melanie TaylorDepartment of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Michael G WalshMarie Bashir Institute for Infectious Disease and Biosecurity, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Michael P WardSydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camden, NSW, Australia.
Andrew WilsonMenzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jane JohnsonSydney Health Ethics, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUMacquarie University · AUUniversity of Wollongong · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHendra virus (HeV) infection is endemic in Australian flying-fox populations. Habitat loss has increased the peri-urban presence of flying-foxes, increasing the risk of contact and therefore viral 'spillovers' into horse and human populations. An equine vaccine is available and horse-husbandry practices that minimize HeV exposure are encouraged, but their adoption is suboptimal. Ecological approaches-such as habitat creation and conservation-could complement vaccination and behavioural strategies by reducing spillover risks, but these are controversial.

methodsWe convened three community juries (two regional; one metropolitan) to elicit the views of well-informed citizens on the acceptability of adding ecological approaches to current interventions for HeV risk. Thirty-one participants of diverse backgrounds, mixed genders and ages were recruited using random-digit-dialling. Each jury was presented with balanced factual evidence, given time to ask questions of expert presenters and, after deliberation, come to well-reasoned conclusions.

resultsAll juries voted unanimously that ecological strategies should be included in HeV risk management strategies but concluded that current interventions-including vaccination and changing horse-husbandry practices-must remain the priority. The key reasons given for adopting ecological approaches were: (i) they address underlying drivers of disease emergence, (ii) the potential to prevent spillover of other bat-borne pathogens, and (iii) there would be broader community benefits. Juries differed regarding the best mechanism to create/conserve flying-fox habitat: participants in regional centres favoured direct government action, whereas the metropolitan jury preferred to place the burden on landholders.

conclusionsInformed citizens acknowledge the value of addressing the drivers of bat-borne infectious risks but differ substantially as to the best implementation strategies. Ecological approaches to securing bat habitat could find broad social support in Australia, but disagreement about how best to achieve them indicates the need for negotiation with affected communities to co-develop fair, effective and locally appropriate policies.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAnimalsAustraliaChiropteraEcologyFemaleHendra VirusHenipavirus InfectionsHorsesHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30596719
PMCPMC6312203
OpenAlexW2906984362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.