↓ Skip to main content

Mixed Methods Survey of Zoonotic Disease Awareness and Practice among Animal and Human Healthcare Providers in Moshi, Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
241 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Mixed Methods Survey of Zoonotic Disease Awareness and Practice among Animal and Human Healthcare Providers in Moshi, Tanzania
Published in
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, March 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004476
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Zoonoses are common causes of human and livestock illness in Tanzania. Previous studies have shown that brucellosis, leptospirosis, and Q fever account for a large proportion of human febrile illness in northern Tanzania, yet they are infrequently diagnosed. We conducted this study to assess awareness and knowledge regarding selected zoonoses among healthcare providers in Moshi, Tanzania; to determine what diagnostic and treatment protocols are utilized; and obtain insights into contextual factors contributing to the apparent under-diagnosis of zoonoses. We conducted a questionnaire about zoonoses knowledge, case reporting, and testing with 52 human health practitioners and 10 livestock health providers. Immediately following questionnaire administration, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 60 of these respondents, using the findings of a previous fever etiology study to prompt conversation. Sixty respondents (97%) had heard of brucellosis, 26 (42%) leptospirosis, and 20 (32%) Q fever. Animal sector respondents reported seeing cases of animal brucellosis (4), rabies (4), and anthrax (3) in the previous 12 months. Human sector respondents reported cases of human brucellosis (15, 29%), rabies (9, 18%) and anthrax (6, 12%). None reported leptospirosis or Q fever cases. Nineteen respondents were aware of a local diagnostic test for human brucellosis. Reports of tests for human leptospirosis or Q fever, or for any of the study pathogens in animals, were rare. Many respondents expressed awareness of malaria over-diagnosis and zoonoses under-diagnosis, and many identified low knowledge and testing capacity as reasons for zoonoses under-diagnosis. This study revealed differences in knowledge of different zoonoses and low case report frequencies of brucellosis, leptospirosis, and Q fever. There was a lack of known diagnostic services for leptospirosis and Q fever. These findings emphasize a need for improved diagnostic capacity alongside healthcare provider education and improved clinical guidelines for syndrome-based disease management to provoke diagnostic consideration of locally relevant zoonoses in the absence of laboratory confirmation.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Norway 1 <1%
Mali 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 238 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Student > Bachelor 22 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 8%
Researcher 19 8%
Other 40 17%
Unknown 74 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 42 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 5%
Other 33 14%
Unknown 82 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 07 June 2018.
All research outputs
#5,121,619
of 34,363,559 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#3,302
of 11,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,625
of 337,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#88
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,363,559 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,449 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 337,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.