Cargando…
Methodology for the assessment of brucellosis management practices and its vaccination campaign: example in two Argentine districts
BACKGROUND: In Argentina, vaccination with Brucella abortus Strain 19 vaccine is mandatory. The objective of the study was to develop and test a method for evaluating, in an innovative way, some farmers’ and veterinarians’ management practices in relation to brucellosis and to assess the vaccination...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5590139/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28882137 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-017-1201-6 |
_version_ | 1783262475736580096 |
---|---|
author | Aznar, M.N. Arregui, M. Humblet, M.F. Samartino, L.E. Saegerman, C. |
author_facet | Aznar, M.N. Arregui, M. Humblet, M.F. Samartino, L.E. Saegerman, C. |
author_sort | Aznar, M.N. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: In Argentina, vaccination with Brucella abortus Strain 19 vaccine is mandatory. The objective of the study was to develop and test a method for evaluating, in an innovative way, some farmers’ and veterinarians’ management practices in relation to brucellosis and to assess the vaccination campaign and coverage. The work took place in Brandsen and Navarro districts. Four questionnaires were designed (for officials from Local Sanitary Entities, vaccinators, vet practitioners and farmers). Responses were coded as “ideal” (0) and “not ideal” (1). To assess the relative weight of each question (“item”), experts ranked the items according to their impact on management practices and vaccination. A weighted score was then calculated. A higher weighted score was assigned to the worse practices. Farmers obtaining a global weighted score above the third quartile were classified as “inappropriately managed farms”, to be compared per type of production system and district. To assess the immunization coverage, female calves were sampled 30 to 50 days post vaccination; they were expected to react positively to serological diagnostic tests (DT+). RESULTS: There were significantly more inappropriately managed farms and higher global scores among beef farmers and in Brandsen. Eighty three percent (83%) of female calves were DT+, significantly under the ideal immunization coverage (95%). Only 48% of farms were considered well vaccinated. DT+ results were positively associated with the Brandsen district (OR = 25.94 [4.60–1146.21] and with the farms having more than 200 cow heads ((OR = 78.34 [4.09–1500.00]). On the contrary, DT+ were less associated with vaccinators being veterinary practitioners (OR = 0.07 [0.006–0.78]). Farmers are well advised by their veterinary practitioners but they should improve some management practices. CONCLUSIONS: The vaccination campaign is globally well implemented, but the immunization coverage and some vaccinators’ practices should be improved. This study leads to a better understanding of the most common used management and control practices regarding brucellosis, which affect its epidemiology. Any vaccination campaign should be periodically assessed to highlight possible fails. The described methodology can be extrapolated to other countries and different contexts. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5590139 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55901392017-09-14 Methodology for the assessment of brucellosis management practices and its vaccination campaign: example in two Argentine districts Aznar, M.N. Arregui, M. Humblet, M.F. Samartino, L.E. Saegerman, C. BMC Vet Res Research Article BACKGROUND: In Argentina, vaccination with Brucella abortus Strain 19 vaccine is mandatory. The objective of the study was to develop and test a method for evaluating, in an innovative way, some farmers’ and veterinarians’ management practices in relation to brucellosis and to assess the vaccination campaign and coverage. The work took place in Brandsen and Navarro districts. Four questionnaires were designed (for officials from Local Sanitary Entities, vaccinators, vet practitioners and farmers). Responses were coded as “ideal” (0) and “not ideal” (1). To assess the relative weight of each question (“item”), experts ranked the items according to their impact on management practices and vaccination. A weighted score was then calculated. A higher weighted score was assigned to the worse practices. Farmers obtaining a global weighted score above the third quartile were classified as “inappropriately managed farms”, to be compared per type of production system and district. To assess the immunization coverage, female calves were sampled 30 to 50 days post vaccination; they were expected to react positively to serological diagnostic tests (DT+). RESULTS: There were significantly more inappropriately managed farms and higher global scores among beef farmers and in Brandsen. Eighty three percent (83%) of female calves were DT+, significantly under the ideal immunization coverage (95%). Only 48% of farms were considered well vaccinated. DT+ results were positively associated with the Brandsen district (OR = 25.94 [4.60–1146.21] and with the farms having more than 200 cow heads ((OR = 78.34 [4.09–1500.00]). On the contrary, DT+ were less associated with vaccinators being veterinary practitioners (OR = 0.07 [0.006–0.78]). Farmers are well advised by their veterinary practitioners but they should improve some management practices. CONCLUSIONS: The vaccination campaign is globally well implemented, but the immunization coverage and some vaccinators’ practices should be improved. This study leads to a better understanding of the most common used management and control practices regarding brucellosis, which affect its epidemiology. Any vaccination campaign should be periodically assessed to highlight possible fails. The described methodology can be extrapolated to other countries and different contexts. BioMed Central 2017-09-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5590139/ /pubmed/28882137 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-017-1201-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Aznar, M.N. Arregui, M. Humblet, M.F. Samartino, L.E. Saegerman, C. Methodology for the assessment of brucellosis management practices and its vaccination campaign: example in two Argentine districts |
title | Methodology for the assessment of brucellosis management practices and its vaccination campaign: example in two Argentine districts |
title_full | Methodology for the assessment of brucellosis management practices and its vaccination campaign: example in two Argentine districts |
title_fullStr | Methodology for the assessment of brucellosis management practices and its vaccination campaign: example in two Argentine districts |
title_full_unstemmed | Methodology for the assessment of brucellosis management practices and its vaccination campaign: example in two Argentine districts |
title_short | Methodology for the assessment of brucellosis management practices and its vaccination campaign: example in two Argentine districts |
title_sort | methodology for the assessment of brucellosis management practices and its vaccination campaign: example in two argentine districts |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5590139/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28882137 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-017-1201-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT aznarmn methodologyfortheassessmentofbrucellosismanagementpracticesanditsvaccinationcampaignexampleintwoargentinedistricts AT arreguim methodologyfortheassessmentofbrucellosismanagementpracticesanditsvaccinationcampaignexampleintwoargentinedistricts AT humbletmf methodologyfortheassessmentofbrucellosismanagementpracticesanditsvaccinationcampaignexampleintwoargentinedistricts AT samartinole methodologyfortheassessmentofbrucellosismanagementpracticesanditsvaccinationcampaignexampleintwoargentinedistricts AT saegermanc methodologyfortheassessmentofbrucellosismanagementpracticesanditsvaccinationcampaignexampleintwoargentinedistricts |