Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36787295›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2023

Regional variation in knowledge and practice regarding common zoonoses among livestock farmers of selective districts in Nepal.

Kosh Bilash Bagale, Ramesh Adhikari, Devaraj Acharya

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kosh Bilash BagaleGraduate School of Education, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Bagmati, Nepal.ORCID 0000-0001-5699-2553
Ramesh AdhikariDepartment of Geography and Population, Mahendra Ratna Campus, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Bagmati, Nepal.
Devaraj AcharyaBhairahawa Multiple Campus, Tribhuvan University, Bhairahawa, Rupandehi, Nepal.
Tribhuvan University · NP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe majority of Nepalese people are involved in farming. However, due to limited knowledge of zoonoses and poor preventive practices on the part of livestock farmers, vulnerabilities to zoonotic diseases are very high. The main objective of this study was to assess the regional variation in zoonoses-related knowledge and preventive practices of livestock farmers in different ecological regions of Nepal. MATERIAL AND

methodsDescriptive cross-sectional quantitative research design was followed in the study. The total sample size was 380 livestock farmers from randomly selected three ecological regions of Nepal. Systematic sampling techniques were applied for data collection. Data were entered into an excel sheet and then imported into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software. The data were calculated using descriptive statistics. Univariate, and bivariate analyses were performed, and the result of the study was presented in the form of text and tables based on their nature.

resultsOf the studied six zoonotic diseases, most of the respondents (95.8%) knew about zoonotic bird flu; 90.7% of them, were about rabies; and 54.2% knew about swine flu. However, a few respondents knew about bovine tuberculosis, neurocysticercosis, and brucellosis. Ecologically, the highest number of respondents in Nawalpur had knowledge of rabies (95.3%), and swine flu (61.6%), whereas 98.3% of them had knowledge of avian influenza in Tanahun; and 12.5% of neurocysticercosis in Manang. Regarding zoonoses preventive practices such as regular hand washing with soap water, mask-wearing, gloves, boots, the respondents' representation of 60.8%, 6.6%, 1.8%, and 1.3% respectively in such practices show that although these are easy and cost-effective, personal protective equipment (PPE), such preventive practices were extremely underperformed. Not only that, only 12% of respondents maintain a standard distance (>15m.) between their house and shed. Similarly, 17% still consumed meat from sick animals, and vaccination of livestock was also found poor coverage (36%) in the study.

conclusionsLivestock farmers need to be more knowledgeable about many common zoonotic diseases, and their preventive practices still need improvement, with significant regional variation in the study. This has invited various zoonosis threats for them. Therefore, it is recommended that the interventional programs related to common zoonoses be conducted for livestock farmers to solve the problem.

Indexed as

NeurocysticercosisRabiesAnimalsCross-Sectional StudiesFarmersHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansLivestockNepalSurveys and QuestionnairesZoonoses

Identifiers

PMID36787295
PMCPMC9928098
OpenAlexW4320709777

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.