ArticlePloS one2019
Understanding the prevalence of bear part consumption in Cambodia: A comparison of specialised questioning techniques.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Topic sensitivity still affects honest responding, even when specialized questioning techniques are used.Conservation science and practice · 2023Article
- Experimental validation of specialized questioning techniques in conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022Article
- Asking sensitive questions in conservation using Randomised Response Techniques.Biological conservation · 2021Review
- Bear bile use at the intersection of maternal health in Cambodia.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 2020Article
- An Assessment of Wildlife Use by Northern Laos Nationals.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- Correction: Understanding the prevalence of bear part consumption in Cambodia: A comparison of specialised questioning techniques.PloS one · 2020Article
- Correction: Understanding the prevalence of bear part consumption in Cambodia: A comparison of specialised questioning techniques.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The trade in bear parts for medicine and for status is a conservation challenge throughout Asia. The Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) and the sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) are endemic to this region, and populations are estimated to have declined throughout their ranges due to widespread illegal killing of bears and trade in parts, combined with loss of habitat. Previous studies have indicated that legislation alone is insufficient to prevent illegal hunting and trade, indicating instead a need to address demand for bear parts and products. We conducted mixed-method surveys in Cambodia to understand the key motivators for individuals to consume bear parts, and to understand whether specialised questioning techniques are applicable in this context. Bear part use is illegal in Cambodia and may therefore be considered a sensitive behaviour, in that individuals may be reluctant to admit to it. To counteract possible biases, four specialised questioning techniques were used in this study: randomised response technique (RRT), unmatched count technique (UCT), nominative technique (NT), and false consensus bias (FCB). All four methods serve to shield a respondent's admittance of a sensitive behaviour from the interviewer. The results presented here show that great variability exists in anonymous methods' efficacy in certain contexts. However, the results overall indicate that individuals in Cambodia are under-reporting their consumption of bear parts when directly asked, and that the prevalence of bear part use in Cambodia may be as high as 15% of the population, representing a significant conservation challenge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.