Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Regarding animal Bites and Rabies; a Multi-Center Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Animal bites and rabies are perceived and managed differently from bites and stings related to envenoms snakes, scorpions and spiders. This study aimed at evaluating knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of local population regarding animal bites and rabies, as a point of comparison for future studies on venomous animals. Methods: This cross-sectional KAP study included 1093 subjects from four rural areas of Mashhad. Data gathered through a validated and reliable structured questionnaire. Results: In total, 1093 respondents included in the study consist of 53% male and 42% adults of 20 to 9 years old. Assessing knowledge; 70% of cases were presented with weak and moderate knowledge related to clinical manifestations, but just the opposite, majority of the respondents (83%) were categorised as good or excellent in their knowledge of prevention. Assessing attitudes; almost all (91%) of respondents categorised as good or attitude. Assessing practices; 33% of cases revealed that there are no good practices with regard to animal bites and rabies. Respondent’s knowledge of prevention was significantly correlated with age (P = 0.01) and educational level (P = 0.002). Both attitudes and practices had significant relations with age. Respondents aged 20- 39 years showed better practices than other age groups (P < 0.01). Conclusion: this study found that while information on prevention is acceptable, clinical findings of bites and rabies are relatively unknown. Preventive measure should include clinical manifestations as well as currently implemented focus on prevention, vaccination and treatment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".