ArticleBMC research notes2025
Knowledge, perceptions, and predictors of zoonotic disease risk among residents of a national park community.
Article in BMC research notes, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to examine how residents living in Mole National Park, Ghana, understand and perceive zoonotic diseases. By assessing their knowledge sources, perceived transmission pathways, and views on animal reservoirs, the research sought to identify key predictors shaping residents' perception of zoonotic risk and to inform targeted health and conservation interventions.
resultsAwareness of zoonotic diseases was widespread, yet only 37% of respondents rated their knowledge as "very good." Self-learning (89%) was the dominant information source, far outweighing formal training (11%). While most correctly identified rabies and Ebola as zoonotic diseases (80%), misconceptions and gaps remained. Commonly perceived transmission pathways included contact with animal blood (66%), sharing food with animals (60%), and consuming undercooked meat (59%). Monkeys (82%) and bats (65%) were frequently cited as reservoirs. Three-quarters viewed zoonoses as a serious health threat. Ordinal regression showed that occupation, education, length of residence, belief in protective gear, and knowledge level significantly predicted risk perception. Park staff and long-term residents demonstrated higher perception of risk, whereas tour guides, individuals with lower education, and those with limited knowledge showed lower perception. Belief in the effectiveness of protective gear strongly increased perceived risk (OR = 4.48).
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.