MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408905558 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0320890

Exploratory analysis of poultry workers’ knowledge and practices Regarding highly pathogenic avian influenza in Guinea

2025· article· en· W4408905558 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Maladho Diaby, Salifou Talassone Bangoura, Castro Gbèmemali Hounmenou, Kadio Jean-Jacques Olivier Kadio, Kouramoudou Bereté, Emile Faya Bongono, Sidikiba Sidibé, Alioune Camara, Alpha-Kabinet Keita, Abdoulaye Touré

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsInfluenza A virus subtype H5N1ZoonosisEnvironmental healthEpizooticPopulationTransmission (telecommunications)Veterinary medicinePoultry farmingMedicineVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 2022-2023, Guinea experienced a major avian influenza epizootic, leading to significant economic losses and increasing the risk of transmission to humans. Raising awareness and promoting protective behaviour among the general population, particularly high-risk groups, could help strengthen prevention and control measures for this zoonosis. This study aimed to assess knowledge and practices related to avian influenza among poultry workers in Guinea. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted between November and December 2023 on poultry farms in Coyah and Forecariah, Guinea prefectures. A survey was administered to all poultry farms in these two prefectures. Data were collected using a questionnaire, which included the following variables: socio-demographic and professional profile of respondents, avian influenza information, sources of information, and a series of questions to assess their knowledge and practices. Knowledge and practice scores were then calculated. The cumulative local effects method was used to assess the influence and contribution of each co-variate to changes in the probability of knowledge and practice levels among poultry farm staff. RESULTS: A total of 326 poultry workers participated in the survey, including poulterers (62.3%), managers (17.5%), and poultry technicians (13.8%). More than half of these workers (54.9%) had heard of influenza avian. Their primary sources of information were health workers (27.9%), friends and fellow farmers (23.3%) and employees (22.7%). Overall, the knowledge of avian influenza was relatively low among poultry workers (42.9%), and the majority (68.4%) demonstrated poor practices on poultry farms. Analysis using the ALE model reveals that age, education and type of occupation are significantly associated with knowledge. At the same time, the number of farms managed, the number of hours worked, and gender are associated considerably with practices among these workers. CONCLUSION: The study revealed a low level of knowledge and poor practices among poultry farm workers despite an avian flu epizootic. These findings suggest the need for a targeted strategy to prevent the risk of virus transmission to humans, including awareness-raising, training, and providing personal protective equipment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicInfluenza Virus Research Studies→French-language works237,207→