↓ Skip to main content

Beyond Bushmeat: Animal Contact, Injury, and Zoonotic Disease Risk in Western Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 743)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
23 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 Mendeley
Title
Beyond Bushmeat: Animal Contact, Injury, and Zoonotic Disease Risk in Western Uganda
Published in
EcoHealth, May 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10393-014-0942-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah B. Paige, Simon D. W. Frost, Mhairi A. Gibson, James Holland Jones, Anupama Shankar, William M. Switzer, Nelson Ting, Tony L. Goldberg

Abstract

Zoonotic pathogens cause an estimated 70% of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases in humans. In sub-Saharan Africa, bushmeat hunting and butchering is considered the primary risk factor for human-wildlife contact and zoonotic disease transmission, particularly for the transmission of simian retroviruses. However, hunting is only one of many activities in sub-Saharan Africa that bring people and wildlife into contact. Here, we examine human-animal interaction in western Uganda, identifying patterns of injuries from animals and contact with nonhuman primates. Additionally, we identify individual-level risk factors associated with contact. Nearly 20% (246/1,240) of participants reported either being injured by an animal or having contact with a primate over their lifetimes. The majority (51.7%) of injuries were dog bites that healed with no long-term medical consequences. The majority (76.8%) of 125 total primate contacts involved touching a carcass; however, butchering (20%), hunting (10%), and touching a live primate (10%) were also reported. Red colobus (Piliocolobus rufomitratus tephrosceles) accounted for most primate contact events. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that men who live adjacent to forest fragments are at elevated risk of animal contact and specifically primate contact. Our results provide a useful comparison to West and Central Africa where "bushmeat hunting" is the predominant paradigm for human-wildlife contact and zoonotic disease transmission.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Unknown 147 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 24%
Researcher 25 16%
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 29 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 24%
Environmental Science 22 14%
Social Sciences 14 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 9 6%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 36 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 226. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
#163,968
of 24,942,536 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#7
of 743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,281
of 231,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,942,536 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 231,805 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.