ArticleEcoHealth2023
Assessing Behavioral Risk Factors Driving Zoonotic Spillover Among High-risk Populations in Myanmar.
Article in EcoHealth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Limestone karst ecology and anthropogenic activities associated with cave-dwelling bats of Southern Shan State, Myanmar.Global ecology and conservation · 2026Article
- Human-animal contact and zoonotic exposure from wild and domestic animals: A cross-sectional study in wildlife-rich areas of Bolivia, Chile, and Guatemala.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- Community Participatory Approach to Design, Test, and Implement Interventions That Reduce Risk of Bat-Borne Disease Spillover: A Case Study from Cambodia.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
- Movement Dynamics and Habitat Use of Owned and Unowned Free-Roaming Dogs on a Two-Square-Kilometer Tourist Island in Southern Thailand.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Emerging zoonotic diseases and COVID-19 pandemic: global Perspective and Indian Scenario.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The increasing global emergence of zoonoses warrants improved awareness of activities that predispose vulnerable communities to greater risk of disease. Zoonotic disease outbreaks regularly occur within Myanmar and at its borders partly due to insufficient knowledge of behavioral risks, hindering participatory surveillance and reporting. This study employed a behavioral surveillance strategy among high-risk populations to understand the behavioral risks for zoonotic disease transmission in an effort to identify risk factors for pathogen spillover. To explore behavioral mechanisms of spillover in Myanmar, we aimed to: (1) evaluate the details around animal contact and types of interaction, (2) assess the association between self-reported unusual symptoms (i.e., any illness or sickness that is not known or recognized in the community or diagnosed by medical providers) and animal contact activities and (3) identify the potential risk factors including behavioral practices of self-reported illness. Participants were enrolled at two community sites: Hpa-An and Hmawbi in Southern Myanmar. A behavioral questionnaire was administered to understand participants' animal exposures, behaviors and self-reported illnesses. From these responses, associations between (1) animal contact activities and self-reported unusual illnesses, and (2) potential risk factors and self-reported unusual illness were tested. Contact with poultry seemed to be very frequent (91.1%) and many participants reported raising, handling and having poultry in their houses as well as slaughtering or being scratched/bitten by them, followed by contact with rodents (57.8%) and swine (17.9%). Compared to participants who did not have any unusual symptoms, participants who had unusual symptoms in the past year were more likely to have sold dead animals (OR = 13.6, 95% CI 6.8-27.2), slaughtered (OR = 2.4, 95% CI 1.7-3.3), raised (OR = 3.4, 95% CI 2.3-5.0) or handled animals (OR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.2-3.6), and had eaten sick (OR = 4.4, 95% CI 3.0-6.4) and/or dead animals (OR = 6.0, 95% CI 4.1-8.8) in the same year. Odds of having reported unusual symptoms was higher among those involved in animal production business (OR = 3.4, 95% CI 1.9-6.2) and animal-involved livelihoods (OR = 3.3, 95% CI 1.5-7.2) compared to other livelihoods. The results suggest that there is a high level of interaction between humans, livestock and wild animals in communities we investigated in Myanmar. The study highlights the specific high-risk behaviors as they relate to animal contact and demographic risk factors for zoonotic spillover. Our findings contribute to human behavioral data needed to develop targeted interventions to prevent zoonotic disease transmission at human-animal interfaces.
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.