ArticleEcoHealth2019
Occupational Animal Contact in Southern and Central Vietnam.
Article in EcoHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Southeast Asia initiative to combat SARS-CoV-2 variants (SEACOVARIANTS) consortium.Wellcome open research · 2024Article
- Building a pathway to One Health surveillance and response in Asian countries.Science in One Health · 2024Review
- Article
- The Virome of Acute Respiratory Diseases in Individuals at Risk of Zoonotic Infections.Viruses · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite the global zoonotic disease burden, the underlying exposures that drive zoonotic disease emergence are not understood. Here, we aimed to assess exposures to potential sources of zoonotic disease and investigate the demographics, attitudes, and behavior of individuals with sustained occupational animal contact in Vietnam. We recruited 581 animal workers (animal-raising farmers, slaughterers, animal health workers, and rat traders) and their families in southern and central Vietnam into a cohort. Cohort members were followed for 3 years and interviewed annually regarding (1) demography and attitudes regarding zoonotic disease, (2) medical history, (3) specific exposures to potential zoonotic infection sources, and (4) socioeconomic status. Interview information over the 3 years was combined and analyzed as cross-sectional data. Of the 297 cohort members interviewed, the majority (79.8%; 237/297) reported raising livestock; almost all (99.6%; 236/237) reported being routinely exposed to domestic animals, and more than a quarter (28.7%; 68/237) were exposed to exotic animals. Overall, 70% (208/297) reported slaughtering exotic animals; almost all (99.5%; 207/208) reported consuming such animals. The consumption of raw blood and meat was common (24.6%; 73/297 and 37%; 110/297, respectively). Over half (58.6%; 174/297) reported recent occupational animal-induced injuries that caused bleeding; the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) was limited. Our work demonstrates that individuals working with animals in Vietnam are exposed to a wide range of species, and there are limited procedures for reducing potential zoonotic disease exposures. We advocate better education, improved animal security, and enforced legislation of PPE for those with occupational animal exposure in Vietnam.
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.