ArticlePloS one2026
Facilitators and barriers to community-based livestock abortion reporting for Rift Valley Fever surveillance in Uganda: A COM-B analysis.
Article in PloS one, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rift Valley Fever Disease (RVFD) causes substantial economic losses via livestock abortion storms, yet community-based abortion reporting for early warning remains suboptimal in endemic settings. This study analysed the behavioural determinants of livestock abortion reporting to inform RVF surveillance interventions in Uganda. We conducted a cross-sectional study using qualitative data collection methods in Isingiro District, Uganda, employing the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) framework. We conducted 29 key informant interviews with national/district policymakers and technical officers and 17 focus group discussions involving livestock owners, abattoir operators, and local leaders. Transcripts underwent deductive thematic analysis using NVivo-12, with independent coding verification and member checking. Barriers and facilitators were ranked by frequency and thematic emphasis, and a comparative analysis was conducted across participant groups. The most frequently cited barrier was poor community knowledge about RVF, while the most powerful demotivator was the absence of post-reporting feedback. Key facilitators included mobile phone platforms, community governance structures, and fear of economic and cultural loss. Our study recommends that sustainable abortion reporting requires simultaneous intervention across capability, opportunity, and motivation domains. Priority interventions could include: integrating reporting into Uganda's electronic surveillance platforms, co-developing local RVF names with communities, establishing reliable feedback mechanisms, addressing veterinary staffing gaps in remote areas, and implementing no-blame reporting protocols. Effective RVF surveillance depends on reinforcing existing community structures while ensuring responsive feedback that validates reporters' contributions.
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.