Bovine zoonoses in Cameroon's West region: Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of herdsmen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim: Shepherds are in constant contact with animals, and they are potential hosts for the transmission of zoonoses. This study aimed to assess the perceptions of shepherds in Cameroon's West region regarding zoonotic diseases. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from August to October 2017, on 218 shepherds. The data were collected using semi-structured interviewer-administered questionnaires. The participants were assessed on their knowledge, attitudes, and practices that might expose them to bovine zoonose transmission, and the data were analyzed with R, version 2.13.0. Descriptive statistics were generated, and the association between socio-demographic characteristics and knowledge was explored using the Chi-square test. Results: Out of the 218 herdsmen, (205/218) 94% did not have any education, and (195/218) 89.5% did not know the definition of zoonosis. There was a correlation between the level of education and knowledge of the definition of zoonosis: About (162/218) 74.6% cited tuberculosis as a zoonosis, (62/218) 28.4% said the main modes of transmission were by ingestion of contaminated milk, and (66/218) 30.3% by consumption of contaminated meat. Abortions during the third trimester of gestation, combined with the presence of hygroma, were described by (130/218) 59.6% of the participants as brucellosis symptoms. In terms of practices and attitudes, (187/218) 85.8% and (50.14/218) 23.0% of the participants confirmed that they consumed raw milk and raw meat, respectively. Almost all (214/218) 98.1% interviewees stated that blood consumption is forbidden. In case of suspicion of disease, (204/218) 93.6% maintained that they treated sick animals without a veterinary prescription, and (209/218) 95.9% left the carcasses in the wild. After contact with animals, (181/218) 83.3% washed their hands. Finally, (192/218) 88.3% would like to be informed about zoonoses. Conclusion: The level of knowledge about zoonotic diseases was low; a high percentage of shepherds followed inadequate hygiene practices and expressed concern about zoonoses. As a result, they are at risk of exposure to pathogens. It would be in the interest of public health to develop training programs for shepherds and livestock owners to mitigate zoonotic risks.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".