Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36225093›Full record

ArticleZoonoses and public health2023

Risk factors associated with self-reported Q fever in Australian wildlife rehabilitators: Findings from an online survey.

Karen O Mathews, Cathie Savage, Jacqueline M Norris, David Phalen, Nick Malikides, Paul A Sheehy, Katrina L Bosward

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Zoonoses and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Molecular Detection and Characterisation ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  4. Frontiers in public health · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Molecular survey and phylogenetic analysis ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. The First Report ofMicroorganisms · 2022
    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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Karen O MathewsSydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8320-5244
Cathie Savage
Jacqueline M NorrisSydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0003-6930
David PhalenSydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Nick Malikides
Paul A SheehySydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Katrina L BoswardSydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Australian wildlife rehabilitators (AWR) are at increased risk of developing Q fever, a serious zoonotic disease caused by the intracellular bacterium Coxiella burnetii. Previous studies have suggested that Australian wildlife may be a potential C. burnetii infection source for humans. However, a recent serological survey of AWR found no association between C. burnetii exposure and direct contact with any wildlife species. To further explore the potential risk that wildlife may pose, this study aimed to identify associations between self-reported Q fever in AWR and risk factors for exposure to C. burnetii. An online cross-sectional survey was implemented in 2018 targeting AWR nationwide. Risk factors for self-reported Q fever were determined using multivariable logistic regression. Medically diagnosed Q fever was self-reported in 4.5% (13/287) of unvaccinated respondents. Rehabilitators who self-reported medically diagnosed Q fever were significantly more likely to: primarily rehabilitate wildlife at a veterinary clinic (OR 17.87, 95% CI: 3.09-110.92), have domestic ruminants residing on the property where they rehabilitate wildlife (OR 11.75, 95% CI: 2.91-57.42), have been educated at a High School/Technical and Further Education level (OR 10.29, 95% CI: 2.13-84.03) and be aged >50 years (OR 6.61, 95% CI: 1.60-38.35). No association was found between self-reported Q fever and direct contact with wildlife. These findings support previous work suggesting that AWR are at increased risk of C. burnetii infection and may develop Q fever potentially via exposure to traditional infection sources including livestock, other domestic animals, or contaminated environments, in association with their rehabilitation practices and lifestyle. Although Q fever vaccination is recommended for AWR, vaccine uptake is low in this population. Future studies should aim to determine the level of Q fever awareness and identify barriers to Q fever vaccination in this at-risk group. The difficulty in accessing the AWR population also highlights the need for a national centralized AWR database.

Indexed as

Coxiella burnetiiQ FeverAnimalsAnimals, WildAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansRisk FactorsRuminantsSelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesAustraliaCoxiella burnetiiQ feverwildlife rehabilitators

Identifiers

PMID36225093
PMCPMC10091799
OpenAlexW4306155765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.