ArticleBMC primary care2025
Resident primary care practitioners' awareness and handling of zoonotic diseases: an explorative online survey in the Hameln-Pyrmont district, Lower Saxony, Germany.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundPrimary care practitioners often are the first medical professionals to see patients with zoonoses. So far, studies on awareness and management of zoonoses in primary care have focused on specific zoonoses, most prominently Lyme disease. Additionally, (diagnostic) uncertainty vs. confidence of this group of practitioners regarding zoonoses has rarely been examined. Finally, little is known about zoonoses in primary care in Germany. This study aims to describe German resident primary care practitioners' awareness and handling of zoonoses, and their confidence regarding diagnostics, therapy, and transmission.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey of primary care practitioners in the Hameln-Pyrmont district, Germany, was conducted between November 6, 2022-January 5, 2023 via regional physician associations. Items on practitioners' awareness and handling of zoonoses in practice were designed to fit the study's aims, and explicitly excluded coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Data were analyzed descriptively and by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and t-tests for paired samples.
resultsN = 43 of the 88 practitioners in the district took the survey (response rate: 48.9%). Zoonoses were seen as more relevant than for the time period before COVID-19 (p < 0.001). Among the up to three zoonoses respondents could mention to occur in practice, borreliosis (21 of 98 mentions overall), salmonellosis (10) and toxoplasmosis (7) were named most often. Practitioners' confidence ratings on diagnostics, therapy, and transmission of zoonoses were higher for self-reported zoonoses than for zoonoses in general (with few exceptions, differences were statistically significant: p ≤ 0.030). Confidence was higher for transmission than for diagnostics and therapy for self-mentioned zoonoses and zoonoses in general (p ≤ 0.012). Ratings for diagnostics and therapy did not show statistical significance. Almost two thirds of the respondents (64.7%) did not know the term "One Health".
conclusionsBorreliosis appears to be the zoonosis with the highest level of attention in primary care. Results on confidence regarding diagnostics and therapy indicate capacities in terms of relatively high confidence regarding salient zoonoses, and room for improvement signified by the lower confidence regarding diagnostics and therapy than transmission. Awareness of uncertainties regarding zoonoses in primary care may trigger continuing medical education, cooperation between medical doctors and veterinarians, and One Health implementation.
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.