ArticleBMC public health2024
Investigation of awareness, sanitation, and customer education practices among employees of pet and animal feed stores that sell live animals in the United States.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Investigation of food safety perceptions, practices, and workplace policies among employees of pet and animal feed stores that sell and do not sell raw meat-based diets.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerous zoonotic disease outbreaks have been associated with companion animals and poultry purchased at pet and animal feed stores. Employees are often the initial source of information for customers purchasing a new pet. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to: (1) investigate awareness, sanitation, and customer education practices related to zoonotic disease risk, and (2) identify predictors of providing customer education among employees of pet and animal feed stores that sell live animals.
methodsA survey of pet and animal feed store employees was conducted to evaluate sanitation practices, training, and awareness of zoonotic disease risk. Differences in proportions of categorical variables were assessed using Chi-square tests. Wilcoxon rank-sum and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess for differences in the values of ordinal variables based on the values of categorical variables. A partial proportional odds model was used to identify predictors of providing customer education.
resultsSurveys were completed by 206 respondents from the Southeast, Midwest, Southwest, and Western US, 146 of whom reported that their workplace sold live animals. Handwashing was more frequent among employees whose workplace had handwashing policies related to handling animals and their habitats (p < 0.001). Perceived zoonotic disease risk was higher among those who had received workplace training (p = 0.007). Higher odds of providing customer education related to zoonotic disease risk were associated with serving in a supervisory role (p = 0.005), higher perceived zoonotic disease risk (p = 0.001), and more frequent sanitation practices (handwashing, p = 0.031; surface disinfection, p < 0.001; and glove use, p < 0.001).
conclusionsPet and animal feed stores play an important role in minimizing occupational health hazards for employees and providing education for customers. These retailers should implement clear biosecurity protocols and provide training about zoonotic disease risk associated with handling live animals.
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.