↓ Skip to main content

Living at the edge of an interface area in Zimbabwe: cattle owners, commodity chain and health workers’ awareness, perceptions and practices on zoonoses

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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.
Title
Living at the edge of an interface area in Zimbabwe: cattle owners, commodity chain and health workers’ awareness, perceptions and practices on zoonoses
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2744-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. M. Gadaga, E.M.C. Etter, B. Mukamuri, K. J. Makwangudze, D. M. Pfukenyi, G. Matope

Abstract

In the great Limpopo transfrontier conservation area (GLTFCA), there is an increased interface between wildlife and domestic animals, because rural households move their cattle into the game park in search of grazing and watering resources. This creates opportunities for inter-species transmission of infectious diseases, including zoonoses like brucellosis and tuberculosis, which may also pose a health risk to the local rural communities. This study investigated the awareness, perceptions and practices on zoonoses amongst rural cattle owners, commodity chain- and health-workers in three different localities around Gonarezhou National Park (GNP), Zimbabwe, where the interface between wild and domestic animals varies. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Malipati, Chikombedzi and Chiredzi that are considered to be high-, medium- and low-domestic animal-wildlife interface areas, respectively. Data was collected from cattle owners, commodity chain and health-workers using a semi-structured questionnaire. To determine the public health risk of food-borne zoonoses, their practices with regard to meat and milk consumptions, and measures they take to prevent exposure to infections were assessed. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and principal component analysis. Most respondents (52.8 %, 102/193) were cattle owners, followed by health (30.1 %, 58/193) and lastly commodity chain workers (17.1 %, 33/193). Overall 67.4 % (130/193) of the respondents were aware of zoonoses with respective 48, 81.8, and 93.1 % of cattle owners, commodity chain, and health workers, being aware. Significantly more cattle owners (P < 0.05) from medium and low interface areas were aware of zoonoses compared to those from high interface areas. All categories of respondents cited anthrax (69.2 %), rabies (57.7 %), tuberculosis (41.5 %) and brucellosis (23.9 %) as important zoonoses. About half (46.1 %; 89/193) of the respondents perceive wildlife as important reservoirs of zoonoses. High proportions 98.4 % (190/193) and 96.4 % (186/193) of the respondents indicated that they consume meat and milk, respectively. Access to game meat and milk from informal markets was closely associated with consumption of raw meat and milk. Fewer cattle owners from a high interface area of Malipati are aware of zoonoses compared to other areas due to combined effects of limited education and other factors disadvantaging these marginalised areas. This may increase their risk of exposure to zoonoses, considering that consumption of raw meat and milk is common. Thus, awareness campaigns may reduce the public health impact of zoonoses at the interface.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Unknown 79 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Researcher 9 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 19 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 13%
Environmental Science 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 20 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 February 2016.
All research outputs
#4,372,016
of 9,723,500 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,172
of 7,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,280
of 342,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#128
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,723,500 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 54th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,582 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 342,910 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.