ArticleOne health outlook2025
Human-bat contacts in the Netherlands, and potential risks for virus exchange.
Article in One health outlook, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions and public health risks of the bat-human interface in households from fragmented rural landscapes in southern Chile.PloS one · 2026Article
- The Challenge of Lyssavirus Infections in Domestic and Other Animals: A Mix of Virological Confusion, Consternation, Chagrin, and Curiosity.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Molecular Surveillance for Potential Zoonotic Pathogens in Troglophilus Bats: Detection and Molecular Characterization of Bat Coronaviruses in Southern Italy.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundContacts between people and free-ranging animals have a potential to cause viral disease epidemics when novel viruses are exchanged. The Netherlands has approximately 18 native bat species, of which some generally use buildings for roosting, and has a dense human population. Frequent indirect and direct contacts between bats and humans could thus be expected, however, this has hardly been studied.
methodsTo study human-bat contacts, people living in the Netherlands were questioned about the type and frequency of their bat contacts, their bat knowledge and perception of bats. For analyses respondents were grouped into (1) general population, (2) bat contact risk group, and (3) people that live in a house with a roost site for a Common Pipistrelle Bat maternity group. Associations between human-bat contacts and other variables were tested by an ordinal logistic regression model.
resultsWe show that 85% (226/265) of group 1 reported no contacts, while 11% (28/265) reported indirect, and 4% (11/265) direct contacts with live bats, dead bats or bat products as their closest type of contacts. These contacts occurred mostly less than yearly. Somewhat similarly, the majority, 69% (9/13) of group 3 reported no contacts, and 15% (2/13) reported indirect contacts and 15% (2/13) reported direct contacts. These occurred monthly to less than yearly. In contrast, a minority, 5% (11/227) in group 2 reported no contacts, while 37% (85/227) reported direct bat contacts, mostly yearly, and 38% (86/227) reported bat-related injury, mostly less than yearly, as their closest type of contact. Overall, an increase in knowledge on bats and bat-related diseases was correlated with closer bat contacts.
conclusionsWe conclude that even though bats live close to people in the Netherlands, direct contacts between bats, or bat products, and humans are rare in people from the general population, while being common in people involved in bat-related work. Mitigation of human-bat contacts will be most efficient when targeted to specific groups that are likely to have contacts with bats.
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.