ArticleScientific reports2025
Nurturing care group approach for improving animal faeces management in Ghana.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Animal faeces management (AFM) is key to avert zoonotic risks especially when integrated into water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions although largely neglected by conventional projects. This study focused on understanding the influence of Nurturing Care Group (NCG) approach on improving AFM in some communities within Savelugu Municipal and Sekyere East District Assemblies of Ghana. The study adopted a cross-sectional qualitative design using 12 focus group discussions and 20 in-depth-interviews with predominantly female members from 12 communities. Data analyses used inductive content analysis based on pre-structured themes from interview tools. We recorded 171 female and 4 male participants in the study. Household livestock were reared - fowls, goat, sheep, cattle and others (e.g., pets - cats, dogs, doves). The main motivation for keeping livestock was economic, nutritional and socio-cultural benefits including ritual functions, security and companionship. NCG intervention heightened awareness of safe AFM including penning, faeces composting, and other linked safe environmental sanitation practices. Barriers to uptake included lack of resources for constructing livestock shelters, lack of fodders during dry season hence scavenging, difficulty in securing veterinary services, and women inability to secure male household heads' support on AFM decisions. Local governance structures were not fully integrated particularly in Savelugu, and even in Sekyere East, leaders' commitment was unsustainable over time. Intervention could improve awareness on safe AFM, leading to some immediate but unsustainable behaviour change practices due to constraints that project designers should not overlook. In future, contextualized technical solutions and active involvement of key stakeholders with defined roles would be critical for sustainable uptake and impact.
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.