Magona J W, Walubengo J, Olaho-Mukani W
Livestock Health Research Institute, PO Box 96, Tororo, Uganda.
J S Afr Vet Assoc. 2004 Dec;75(4):173-6. doi: 10.4102/jsava.v75i4.478.
A pilot survey using a structured questionnaire was conducted in Tororo and Busia districts of Uganda on the knowledge and attitudes of cattle owners regarding tsetse fly and trypanosomosis control, in order to understand factors that hindered their full participation. A total of 81 cattle owners was randomly selected and interviewed, of which 92.5% were aware of tsetse flies and trypanosomosis and 87.6% recognised animal trypanosomosis as a problem in the area. Most cattle owners were aware of tsetse fly trapping (76.5%), isometamidium chloride use (55.5%), diminazene aceturate use (48%) and pour-on applications (18.5%). However, knowledge did not coincide with the application of control measures. Despite the widespread awareness, tsetse fly trapping and pour-on applications were used by only a small percentage of cattle owners (7.5% applied tsetse fly trapping while 76.5% were aware of it; 1.2% applied pour-on insecticides while 18.5% were aware of them). Differences between awareness and application were highly significant for tsetse fly trapping (chi2 = 67.8, d.f. = 1, P < 0.001) and pour-on applications (chi2 = 10.8, d.f. = 1, P < 0.05), but not for isometamidium chloride use (chi2 = 0.08, d.f. = 1, P = 0.77) and diminazene aceturate use (chi2 = 0.00, d.f. = 1, P = 1.00). Most cattle owners (97.5%) were willing to participate in future control programmes, but preferred participating on a group basis (85.2%) rather than individually (14.8%). The 4 most favoured control options in order of importance were: fly traps supplied by the government and maintained by cattle owners; contribution of labour by cattle owners for trap deployment; self-financing of trypanocidal drugs and self-financing of pour-on insecticide. The control options that should be selected in order to elicit full participation by cattle owners are discussed.
在乌干达的托罗罗区和布西亚区，使用结构化问卷进行了一项试点调查，以了解养牛户对采采蝇和锥虫病防治的知识与态度，从而找出阻碍他们充分参与的因素。总共随机挑选了81位养牛户进行访谈，其中92.5%的人知晓采采蝇和锥虫病，87.6%的人认识到动物锥虫病是该地区的一个问题。大多数养牛户了解采采蝇诱捕（76.5%）、使用氯咪苯脲（55.5%）、使用贝尼尔（48%）和浇泼剂（18.5%）。然而，知识与防治措施的应用并不相符。尽管知晓情况较为普遍，但只有一小部分养牛户使用采采蝇诱捕和浇泼剂（7.5%的人应用采采蝇诱捕，而知晓的人有76.5%；1.2%的人应用浇泼杀虫剂，而知晓的人有18.5%）。对于采采蝇诱捕（χ² = 67.8，自由度 = 1，P < 0.001）和浇泼剂应用（χ² = 10.8，自由度 = 1，P < 0.05），知晓与应用之间的差异非常显著，但对于氯咪苯脲的使用（χ² = 0.08，自由度 = 1，P = 0.77）和贝尼尔的使用（χ² = 0.00，自由度 = 1，P = 1.00）并非如此。大多数养牛户（97.5%）愿意参与未来的防治计划，但更倾向于集体参与（85.2%）而非个人参与（14.8%）。按重要性排序，最受欢迎的4种防治选择是：由政府提供并由养牛户维护的诱捕器；养牛户为诱捕器部署贡献劳动力；自行购买杀锥虫药物；自行购买浇泼杀虫剂。文中讨论了为促使养牛户充分参与应选择的防治方案。
