ArticleHealth science reports2026
Evaluation of Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives on the Preparedness of Ghana's Animal Health Services for African Swine Fever Control: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Health science reports, 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: African Swine Fever (ASF) is a highly fatal viral disease of pigs that has persisted in Ghana since its first introduction in 1999, causing recurrent outbreaks with devastating socioeconomic consequences for livelihoods and food security. Despite control measures implemented by Ghana's veterinary services, outbreaks continue, reflecting critical gaps in national preparedness and institutional support. This study assessed the preparedness of Ghana's animal health services to manage and control ASF. Methods: A mixed-method of cross-sectional design was employed, combining structured questionnaires and semi-structured interviews across three geographic belts of Ghana. Participants included veterinary officers, pig farmers, policy makers, and community animal health workers. Data were entered into Microsoft Excel and exported into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 27 for analysis. Results: Findings revealed partial preparedness: strong centralized diagnostic capacity but weak regional infrastructure and limited farmer engagement. ASF awareness varied, with persistent misconceptions about zoonotic potential and cultural beliefs undermining prevention. Institutional support was inconsistent where over 70% of farmers reported no cooperative support and 80% received no government assistance during outbreaks. Biosecurity compliance was irregular, constrained by financial limits and absent incentives, leading to under-reporting. Farmers and field officers lacked epidemiological literacy, and highly centralized surveillance caused delays in field investigation and laboratory confirmation, with low responsiveness at regional and community levels. Conclusion: African Swine Fever's impacts extend beyond farm-level losses to livelihood collapse, psychosocial distress, and pork market disruption. Though not zoonotic, its control demands a One Health approach integrating veterinary, environmental, and socioeconomic dimensions through decentralized diagnostics, stronger farmer-vet partnerships, compensation systems, and psychosocial resilience strategies. What's Known: African swine fever is a highly lethal viral disease of pigs with no vaccine or treatment, bringing huge economic and livelihood losses around the world.Since the first detection in 1999, ASF outbreaks have occurred periodically in Ghana, pointing to the deficiencies in disease surveillance, biosecurity, and institutional coordination.Rapid diagnostics, compensation schemes, and strong veterinary governance structures have been effective control mechanisms in other regions, for example, Europe. What's New: This study offers a multi-stakeholder assessment of Ghana's ASF preparedness, integrating perspectives from veterinary officers, policymakers, and farmers in a holistic approach not previously reported in ASF literature for Ghana.It also, therefore, identifies psychosocial impacts and livelihood collapse among farmers and proposes incorporating psychosocial recovery and One Health principles into national ASF preparedness frameworks.Results indicate partial preparedness: strong central diagnostics but weak regional infrastructure, as well as limited farmer awareness and institutional support. What Are the Clinical Implications of This Study?: The strengthening of decentralized diagnostics and surveillance, including rapid field tests and regional laboratory capacity, is of great importance for early detection and containment.Improved reporting and compliance will occur by implementing farmer-veterinary partnerships, compensation mechanisms, and biosecurity incentives.Molecular monitoring, psychological support, and multisectoral coordination added to Ghana's ASF Strategy would build long-term resilience and align national control with international standards for a One Health approach.
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.