Ndengu M, DE Garine-Wichatitsky M, Pfukenyi D M, Tivapasi M, Mukamuri B, Matope G
Department of Clinical Veterinary Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science,University of Zimbabwe,P.O. Box MP 167, Mount Pleasant, Harare,Zimbabwe.
Research Platform Production and Conservation in Partnership,P.O. Box 1378, Harare,Zimbabwe.
Epidemiol Infect. 2017 May;145(7):1304-1319. doi: 10.1017/S0950268817000097. Epub 2017 Feb 6.
A study was conducted to assess the awareness of cattle abortions due to brucellosis, Rift Valley fever (RVF) and leptospirosis, and to compare frequencies of reported abortions in communities living at the periphery of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area in southeastern Zimbabwe. Three study sites were selected based on the type of livestock-wildlife interface: porous livestock-wildlife interface (unrestricted); non-porous livestock-wildlife interface (restricted by fencing); and livestock-wildlife non-interface (totally absent or control). Respondents randomly selected from a list of potential cattle farmers (N = 379) distributed at porous (40·1%), non-interface (35·5%) and non-porous (26·4%), were interviewed using a combined close- and open-ended questionnaire. Focus group discussions were conducted with 10-12 members of each community. More abortions in the last 5 years were reported from the porous interface (52%) and a significantly higher per cent of respondents from the porous interface (P < 0·05) perceived wildlife as playing a role in livestock abortions compared with the other interface types. The odds of reporting abortions in cattle were higher in large herd sizes (odds ratio (OR) = 2·6; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·5-4·3), porous (OR = 1·9; 95% CI 1·0-3·5) and non-porous interface (OR = 2·2; 95% CI 1·1-4·3) compared with livestock-wildlife non-interface areas. About 21·6% of the respondents knew brucellosis as a cause of abortion, compared with RVF (9·8%) and leptospirosis (3·7%). These results explain to some extent, the existence of human/wildlife conflict in the studied livestock-wildlife interface areas of Zimbabwe, which militates against biodiversity conservation efforts. The low awareness of zoonoses means the public is at risk of contracting some of these infections. Thus, further studies should focus on livestock-wildlife interface areas to assess if the increased rates of abortions reported in cattle may be due to exposure to wildlife or other factors. The government of Zimbabwe needs to launch educational programmes on public health awareness in these remote areas at the periphery of transfrontier conservation areas where livestock-wildlife interface exists to help mitigate the morbidity and mortality of people from some of the known zoonotic diseases.
开展了一项研究，以评估对因布鲁氏菌病、裂谷热（RVF）和钩端螺旋体病导致的牛流产的认知情况，并比较津巴布韦东南部大林波波跨界保护区周边社区报告的流产频率。根据家畜-野生动物界面类型选择了三个研究地点：多孔家畜-野生动物界面（无限制）；无孔家畜-野生动物界面（受围栏限制）；以及家畜-野生动物无界面（完全不存在或为对照）。从分布在多孔（40.1%）、无界面（35.5%）和无孔（26.4%）的潜在养牛户名单（N = 379）中随机抽取受访者，使用封闭式和开放式相结合的问卷进行访谈。与每个社区的10 - 12名成员进行了焦点小组讨论。多孔界面地区报告的过去5年中的流产情况更多（52%），与其他界面类型相比，来自多孔界面的受访者中认为野生动物在牲畜流产中起作用的比例显著更高（P < 0.05）。与家畜-野生动物无界面地区相比，大畜群规模（优势比（OR）= 2.6；95%置信区间（CI）1.5 - 4.3）、多孔（OR = 1.9；95% CI 1.0 - 3.5）和无孔界面地区（OR = 2.2；95% CI 1.1 - 4.3）报告牛流产的几率更高。约21.6%的受访者知道布鲁氏菌病是流产的一个原因，相比之下，知道裂谷热（9.8%）和钩端螺旋体病（3.7%）的受访者较少。这些结果在一定程度上解释了津巴布韦所研究的家畜-野生动物界面地区存在的人/野生动物冲突，这不利于生物多样性保护工作。人畜共患病认知度低意味着公众有感染其中一些疾病的风险。因此，进一步的研究应侧重于家畜-野生动物界面地区，以评估报告的牛流产率上升是否可能是由于接触野生动物或其他因素。津巴布韦政府需要在存在家畜-野生动物界面的跨界保护区周边这些偏远地区开展关于公共卫生意识的教育项目，以帮助降低一些已知人畜共患病导致的人群发病率和死亡率。
