Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35171910›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Risk perceptions and behaviors of actors in the wild animal value chain in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo.

Ashley Lucas, Charles Kumakamba, Karen Saylors, Erby Obel, Reggiani Kamenga, Maria Makuwa, Catherine Clary, Guy Miningue, David J McIver, Christian E Lange and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. 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
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ashley LucasLabyrinth Global Health, Saint Petersburg, FL, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0134-6615
Charles KumakambaMetabiota Inc., Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Karen SaylorsLabyrinth Global Health, Saint Petersburg, FL, United States of America.
Erby ObelMetabiota Inc., San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Reggiani KamengaMetabiota Inc., San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Maria MakuwaLabyrinth Global Health, Saint Petersburg, FL, United States of America.
Catherine ClaryMetabiota Inc., San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Guy MiningueMetabiota Inc., Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
David J McIverMetabiota Inc., Nanaimo, BC, Canada.
Christian E LangeLabyrinth Global Health, Saint Petersburg, FL, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0664-9367
Placide Mbala KingebeniMetabiota Inc., Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Jean J Muyembe-TamfumInstitut National de Recherche Biomédicale, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Metabiota (United States) · USNational Institute of Biomedical Research · CD

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) which contains the greatest area of the second largest rainforest on Earth, people have long been connected to the forest for subsistence and livelihood from wild animals and bushmeat. This qualitative study sought to characterize the bushmeat movement-from hunting wild animals to market sale-and the roles of participants in the animal value chain, as well as their beliefs surrounding zoonotic disease and occupational risk. Actors in in eight bushmeat markets and two ports in Kinshasa, DRC completed semi-structured interviews between 2016 and 2018 in which they expressed belief in transmission of illness from domestic animals to humans, but not from wild animals to humans. Wild animals were viewed as pure and natural, in contrast to domestic animals which were considered tainted by human interference. Participants reported cutting themselves during the process of butchering yet did not consider butchering bushmeat to be a risky activity. Instead, they adopted safety practices learned over time from butchering experts and taught themselves how to butcher in a fashion that reduced the frequency of cutting. In general, butcherers rejected the idea of personal protective equipment use. Port markets were identified as important access points for meat coming from the Congo river and plane transport was identified as important for fresh and live meat coming from Équateur province. Most participants reported having heard about Ebola, but their mistrust in government messaging privileged a word-of-mouth story of witchcraft to be propagated about Ebola's origins. It is critical to better understand how public health messaging about outbreaks can successfully reach high risk communities, and to develop creative risk mitigation strategies for populations in regular contact with animal blood and body fluids. In this paper, we offer suggestions for formal and informal trusted channels through which health messages surrounding zoonotic risk could be conveyed to high-risk populations in Kinshasa.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimals, WildDemocratic Republic of the CongoDisease OutbreaksFemaleFocus GroupsHemorrhagic Fever, EbolaHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMeatOccupational ExposurePerceptionRisk FactorsZoonoses

Identifiers

PMID35171910
PMCPMC8849473
OpenAlexW4213272094

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.