Brucellosis: Community, medical and veterinary workers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices in Northern Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed at determining the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of the community, medical and veterinary workers regarding brucellosis. Materials and Methods:A cross-sectional study was conducted at selected health facilities in Apac, Gulu, Lira, and Pader districts of Northern Uganda using a standardized questionnaire.A total of 251 patients testing positive for brucellosis using the Brucella plate agglutination test, 59 medical and 29 veterinary workers were studied.Chi-square test at 95% confidence level was used to analyze data.Results: Only 8% patients, 15.3% medical, and 21.4% veterinary workers were knowledgeable on transmission methods and symptoms for brucellosis and knowledge differed according to the level of education among patients (p=0.001),medical (p=0.001), and veterinary workers (p=0.012).Over 80% patients, medical and veterinary workers had a positive attitude.Only 8% patients, 13.6% medical, and 7.1% veterinary workers had good practices regarding brucellosis control.Conclusion: Poor knowledge, poor practices, and positive attitude provide an opportunity for health education and policy formulation for the control of brucellosis.The prevalence studies of human and animal brucellosis are recommended to determine the magnitude of the problem.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".