Knowledge-attitude and practice of Anthrax and brucellosis: Implications for zoonotic disease surveillance and control in pastoral communities of Afar and Somali region, Ethiopia
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases·
- DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012067
- PMID
- 38574113
- PMCID
- PMC11020881
- OpenAlex
- W4393928664
- Study type
- Journal article
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Article type
- journal-article
- Integrity
- current
Why this research matters now
The findings highlight gaps in zoonotic disease awareness, reporting, and response capacity that may inform future one health approaches to surveillance and control in pastoral Ethiopian settings.
Structured evidence summary
Research question
The study examines knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to anthrax and brucellosis among pastoralists and healthcare providers in pastoral regions of Ethiopia, with the goal of identifying factors contributing to limited reporting and weak control of these zoonoses.
Study design
Two cross-sectional questionnaire surveys were conducted with pastoralists and healthcare providers between February and April 2019 across five districts in the Afar and Somali regions of Ethiopia.
Population and setting
The study surveyed 509 pastoralists and 51 healthcare providers in five districts of the Afar region and the Somali Regional State (SRS) of Ethiopia.
Main findings
Healthcare providers showed limited familiarity with disease symptoms, and health extension workers reported knowing none. Providers recalled few human brucellosis cases but multiple anthrax cases based on symptom-based diagnosis alone. Pastoralists had moderate awareness of zoonotic transmission and ranked anthrax as the top zoonosis, yet continued practices that elevate exposure risk. Knowledge among pastoralist women was notably poorer, and both groups cited low vaccine and drug availability as key barriers.
Public-health relevance
The findings highlight gaps in zoonotic disease awareness, reporting, and response capacity that may inform future one health approaches to surveillance and control in pastoral Ethiopian settings.
Important limitations
The summary is limited to the supplied single-article abstract and metadata; reliance on symptom-based recall by healthcare providers and absence of laboratory confirmation noted in the abstract suggest constraints on case ascertainment that warrant review of the original paper for decision-grade interpretation.
GIDS interpretation
The paper is indexed under zoonotic disease topics relevant to discoverability within one health and surveillance literature; this indexing does not constitute linkage to any active surveillance signal.
Related GIDS surveillance
Literature context does not validate, explain, or change a surveillance signal. Exact and contextual relationships are shown separately.
Evidence relationships
This article has 12 auditable classifier relationships to diseases, places, topics, and study design.