Norwegian Veterinary Institute, Pb750 Sentrum, Oslo, Norway.
Zoonoses Public Health. 2012 Dec;59(8):575-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2012.01499.x. Epub 2012 May 29.
Inter-country travel of companion animals provides an opportunity for introduction of zoonotic pathogens, such as rabies virus and Echinococcus spp. Regulations are in place to control this threat, but Schengen Agreements mean that border controls between some European countries are minimal, and animals may enter countries without any checks that they have been appropriately treated. Veterinarians provide an important source of information for people intending to travel with their pets. We conducted a telephone survey to investigate provision of correct advice to someone intending to travel with their dog to Norway. Mainland Norway is considered free of both rabies and E. multilocularis and is a signatory to the Schengen Agreement. Ten randomly selected veterinary clinics were surveyed in Austria, Belgium (Wallonia), Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom. The information provided was scored as correct, incorrect or incomplete. The information provided by secondary information sources (website or government agency), which the clinic had referred the caller to, was also assessed (correct, incorrect, incomplete). Whilst the majority of clinics provided appropriate information regarding rabies, many clinics did not provide correct information regarding treatment for E. multilocularis. Less than one in 10 clinics provided the correct information regarding both pathogens directly at the time of calling. The correct information was obtained, once taking into account secondary sources, just 62% of the time. Countrywise, most clinics in Finland provided correct advice, either directly or indirectly via referring the caller to another source, whilst the majority in Belgium, Germany and France did not. The apparent paucity of readily accessible, correct advice for owners intending to travel with their dogs is concerning. The compulsory treatment regulations are only as good as the checks that ensure compliance, and this is also lacking in some countries.
伴生动物的跨国旅行为引入动物传染病病原体（如狂犬病病毒和细粒棘球绦虫属）提供了机会。为此，制定了相关法规来控制这种威胁，但申根协议意味着一些欧洲国家之间的边境管制非常有限，动物可能在没有任何检查的情况下进入这些国家，而这些检查本应确保动物已接受适当的治疗。兽医为计划携带宠物旅行的人提供了重要的信息来源。我们进行了一项电话调查，以了解兽医向计划携带宠物犬前往挪威旅行的人提供正确建议的情况。挪威本土被认为既没有狂犬病也没有泡状带绦虫，并且是申根协议的签署国。在奥地利、比利时（瓦隆大区）、芬兰、法国、德国、挪威、瑞典、瑞士和英国随机选择了 10 家兽医诊所进行调查。将提供的信息分为正确、错误和不完整三种情况。还评估了兽医向咨询者推荐的次要信息来源（网站或政府机构）提供的信息（正确、错误、不完整）。虽然大多数诊所在狂犬病方面提供了适当的信息，但许多诊所在泡状带绦虫病的治疗方面并未提供正确的信息。不到十分之一的诊所在咨询时直接提供了这两种病原体的正确信息。考虑到次要来源，只有 62%的时间能够获得正确的信息。按国家划分，芬兰的大多数诊所无论是直接提供还是通过引导咨询者访问其他资源，都提供了正确的建议，而比利时、德国和法国的大多数诊所则没有。对于那些打算携带宠物犬旅行的主人来说，他们发现能够轻易获取的正确建议非常匮乏，这令人担忧。强制性治疗法规的有效性取决于确保其遵守的检查，而在一些国家，这方面也存在不足。
