ArticleBMC veterinary research2026
Impact evaluation of a small ruminant flock health intervention on animal health, welfare, and farmer income in Ethiopia.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the impact of a flock health intervention addressing key animal health and welfare challenges in small ruminants in Ethiopia through scheduled deworming and vaccination, complemented by flock health management training for smallholder farmers in two districts: Doyogena and Angollelana Tara. The study employed a randomized controlled trial, which was conducted for one year from May 1, 2023 - April 30, 2024, to measure the intervention’s effectiveness on animal health, animal welfare and farmer income. Post-intervention results showed lower morbidity (21% vs. 33% in Doyogena; 13% vs. 19% in Angollelana Tara) and mortality rates (6% vs. 9% in both districts) in treatment groups compared with control groups. However, only the reduction in morbidity in Doyogena was statistically significant (P < 0.05); the other differences lacked strong statistical support (P > 0.05). Most of the health and welfare indicators such as FAMACHA score, DAG score, body condition score, and hair coat condition recorded during the intervention showed improvement in the treatment group as compared with the control group with strong evidence (mostly P < 0.05). Gastrointestinal strongyle prevalence and worm burden decreased in treatment groups in both districts with strong evidence (P < 0.05) in Doyogena district. In Doyogena, prevalence decreased from 64% to 37%, and worm burden dropped from 500 to 290 EPG in the treatment group, compared with an increase in the control group (74% to 98% prevalence; 468 to 824 EPG worm burden). Economically, treatment flocks generated a higher annual gross margin than control flocks in both districts, a difference that was statistically significant in Doyogena (P < 0.05). Overall, the intervention led to substantial improvements in animal health, welfare, and farmer profitability, with the potential for expansion to similar production systems.
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.