ArticleBMC public health2026
Exploring community awareness and perspectives on zoonotic disease in Nepal: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC public health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQualitative research focused on Nepalese community perspectives on zoonotic disease is lacking. We aimed to characterise the contextual factors and mechanisms driving awareness of risk and prevention of zoonotic diseases in selected communities in Nepal.
methodsWe conducted 39 semi-structured individual interviews in six communities, and five focus groups with 34 participants. Ten participated in photovoice. Twenty healthcare professionals and policymakers were interviewed, 14 representing human health and six representing animal health. We analysed data thematically.
findingsWe generated two major themes: disease awareness, and beliefs and behaviours. Participants were aware of diseases that they had directly experienced or that they perceived might affect their family or livelihood. This was especially true of rabies. Information on disease was usually spread informally. Use of traditional medicine was widespread: some participants saw this behaviour as anachronistic, with others seeing it as pragmatic, as accessing traditional healers is often easier than visiting health posts. Consuming bushmeat was seen as something 'others' did, although some suggested bushmeat was medicinal and others distinguished between 'clean' and 'dirty' rodents. Hygiene practices were perceived as necessary to remove dirt but seldom linked explicitly to illness. Religious beliefs were presented as a reason for not harming rodents.
conclusionWorking with communities is essential to understanding complex behaviours that might increase disease risk, especially in communities that lack resources to mitigate these threats. Specific implications for policymakers are the importance of ensuring the healthcare system is inclusive of different groups needing its services, and that differing beliefs are considered when designing services.
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.