Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33670505›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

What Do Lithuanian Hunters Think of African Swine Fever and Its Control-Perceptions.

Evelina Stončiūtė, Katja Schulz, Alvydas Malakauskas, Franz J Conraths, Marius Masiulis, Carola Sauter-Louis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Motivation and Habits of a Wild Boar-Hunting Community.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. African Swine Fever Survey in a European Context.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. 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.

Evelina StončiūtėDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, Veterinary Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Tilzes 18, LT-47181 Kaunas, Lithuania.ORCID 0000-0002-1600-3981
Katja SchulzFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Epidemiology, Südufer 10, 17493 Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1816-6554
Alvydas MalakauskasDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, Veterinary Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Tilzes 18, LT-47181 Kaunas, Lithuania.
Franz J ConrathsFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Epidemiology, Südufer 10, 17493 Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7400-9409
Marius MasiulisEmergency Response Department, State Food and Veterinary Service, Siesiku 19, LT-07170 Vilnius, Lithuania.ORCID 0000-0003-2779-5803
Carola Sauter-LouisFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Epidemiology, Südufer 10, 17493 Greifswald, Germany.

Funding

The Baltic-German University Liaison Office Project No. 2020-PRO-87
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After the introduction of African swine fever (ASF) into Lithuania in 2014, continuous spread of the disease resulted in infection of the wild boar populations in most parts of Lithuania. The virus has been moving closer to other Western European countries where pig density is high. An efficient surveillance system detecting ASF cases early in domestic and wild animals is necessary to manage this disease. To make surveillance appropriate and effective, it is critical to understand how key players perceive the implemented control measures. This study investigated the attitudes and beliefs of hunters in Lithuania regarding currently implemented or proposed measures for the control of ASF in the wild boar population. Study data were collected through questionnaires distributed via the internet and by hunting associations in Lithuania. In total, 621 fully completed questionnaires were received and analyzed. All measures interfering with extensive hunting, like ban of driven or individual hunting or ban of supplementary feeding were considered as unacceptable and as ineffective measures to control ASF in wild boar. However, selective hunting of female wild boar was generally considered as an unethical act and therefore rejected. Some measures that seem to have been successful in other countries, like involvement of additional forces, were rejected by Lithuanian hunters, thus implementation of these measures could be difficult. The study highlighted that there is a need for improving important relationships with other stakeholders, since many hunters expressed a lack of trust in governmental institutions and regarded cooperation with them as insufficient. Hunters emphasized that their motivation to support passive surveillance measures could be improved with financial compensation and reduction of workload. The present study provides insights into hunters' perceptions, which may be used as a foundation for additional discussions with these important stakeholders and for adapting measures to improve their acceptance if appropriate.

Indexed as

acceptabilityAfrican swine feversurveillancewild boar

Identifiers

PMID33670505
PMCPMC7922269

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.