Research for Social Change, Faculty of Social Science, The University of Wollongong, Australia.
Sydney School of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Australia.
Soc Sci Med. 2018 Sep;212:60-67. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.006. Epub 2018 Jul 5.
Australia is currently canine rabies free; however, the spread of rabies in eastern Indonesia poses an increasing risk to northern Australia. Domestic dogs are numerous in East Arnhem Land (EAL) and the Northern Peninsular Area (NPA), usually unrestrained and living in close relationships with humans. The response to any rabies outbreak on Australian territory will focus on dog vaccination, controlling dog movements and depopulation. A One Health approach to zoonotic disease control should seek to co-promote human and animal health, whilst also seeking to accommodate the preferences of affected communities. We report on 5 collaborative workshops and 28 semi-structured interviews conducted between January 2017 and June 2018 with: (i) EAL and NPA community members; (ii) Indigenous Rangers in EAL and NPA; and (iii) residents of Cairns, the local regional centre. Storyboard methodologies were used to work with participants and explore what rabies response measures they thought were justified or unacceptable, why they held these views, and what other steps they believed needed to be taken. Key findings include that the capacity of the NPA and EAL communities to contribute/adapt to a biosecurity response is limited by structural disadvantage including poor infrastructure (such as lockable premises and intact fences) and appropriate information, dominant cultural norms and food security concerns. Dogs and dingoes can have great cultural and social importance; key interventions might be accommodated within cultural beliefs and long-standing norms of dog management if sufficient effort is made to adapt interventions to local contexts and community preferences. Adopting such a 'strengths-based' approach mandates that the communities at greatest risk need help to prepare for and develop strategies to manage a biosecurity response to a rabies incursion. This would include listening to individual and community concerns and attending to the educational and infrastructural needs for supporting different groups to respond appropriately.
澳大利亚目前没有犬狂犬病；然而，印度尼西亚东部狂犬病的传播对澳大利亚北部构成的威胁越来越大。在东阿伦特姆地区（EAL）和北半岛地区（NPA），家养犬数量众多，通常不受约束，与人类生活密切相关。对澳大利亚境内任何狂犬病爆发的反应将集中在给狗接种疫苗、控制狗的活动和减少狗的数量上。采用“同一健康”方法控制人畜共患病应努力共同促进人类和动物的健康，同时也要考虑到受影响社区的偏好。我们报告了 2017 年 1 月至 2018 年 6 月期间与以下人员进行的 5 次协作研讨会和 28 次半结构化访谈：（i）EAL 和 NPA 社区成员；（ii）EAL 和 NPA 的土著护林员；（iii）凯恩斯的居民，当地的区域中心。故事板方法被用于与参与者合作，探讨他们认为哪些狂犬病应对措施是合理的或不可接受的，为什么他们持有这些观点，以及他们认为还需要采取哪些其他步骤。主要发现包括，NPA 和 EAL 社区应对生物安全的能力受到结构劣势的限制，包括基础设施差（如可上锁的场所和完整的围栏）以及适当的信息、占主导地位的文化规范和粮食安全问题。狗和野狗可能具有重要的文化和社会意义；如果能够做出足够的努力，使干预措施适应当地情况和社区偏好，那么关键的干预措施可能会被纳入文化信仰和长期以来的养狗管理规范中。采取这种“基于优势”的方法意味着，面临最大风险的社区需要帮助为应对狂犬病传入做好准备，并制定管理生物安全应对措施的战略。这包括倾听个人和社区的关切，关注支持不同群体做出适当反应的教育和基础设施需求。
