Brucellosis in India: Comparing exposure amongst veterinarians, para-veterinarians and animal handlers

The exposure to Brucella species is an occupational hazard for veterinary personnel in India. In our previous study, paraveterinarians and animal handlers were found to be at higher risk of being seropositive. In the present study, we further investigate comparative exposure risk to brucellosis amongst the veterinary professionals, identify risk factors, and evaluate the perceptions and practices towards using adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) while attending high risk veterinary interventions. A cross-sectional study was conducted amongst veterinary personnel in the Punjab state of India. Logistic and negative binomial regression models were constructed to interpret the influence of categorical and numerical variables on prevalence of brucellosis and the adequacy of PPE use, respectively. Compared to veterinarians, animal handlers were less likely to consider veterinary practice in sheep and goats (odds ratio [OR] 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.2–0.7) or assisting in obstetric interventions (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1–0.8) as potential exposures. They were less aware of the signs and symptoms of the disease in humans (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02–0.14) and of the availability of vaccines for cattle (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01–0.3) than the veterinarians, and were least likely of the three groups to recommend vaccination of cattle against brucellosis to animal owners (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.02–0.3). Compared to veterinarians, they were also less likely to consider zoonotic risk (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2–0.8) or better efficiency (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.05–0.4) as enablers of PPE use during veterinary procedures. Of the three occupational groups, animal handlers were also less likely to use adequate PPE during high-risk veterinary exposures, although they were found to have handled the highest number of cases of abortion. The average use of adequate PPE during high-risk interventions in one month preceding this study was lowest for animal handlers. Veterinary personnel with a higher rate of PPE use during high-risk veterinary interventions were likely to obtain information on brucellosis from government sources (p = 0.06) and felt that PPE use enhanced their professional efficiency (Incidence rate ratio [IRR] 3.3, 95% CI 1.5–8.1) compared to those who were less likely to use adequate PPE. We recommend concerted efforts to increase awareness amongst veterinary personnel, particularly amongst animal handlers, regarding brucellosis and the importance of biosecurity measures in veterinary practice. Designing training courses on the importance of PPE use along with formulation of biosecurity guidelines at local levels could help reduce the prevalence of the disease in veterinary personnel.