| Literature DB >> 23902718 |
Kathrin Schemann1, Simon M Firestone, Melanie R Taylor, Jenny-Ann L M L Toribio, Michael P Ward, Navneet K Dhand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing body of work shows the benefits of applying social cognitive behavioural theory to investigate infection control and biosecurity practices. Protection motivation theory has been used to predict protective health behaviours. The theory outlines that a perception of a lack of vulnerability to a disease contributes to a reduced threat appraisal, which results in poorer motivation, and is linked to poorer compliance with advised health protective behaviours. This study, conducted following the first-ever outbreak of equine influenza in Australia in 2007, identified factors associated with horse managers' perceived vulnerability to a future equine influenza outbreak.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23902718 PMCID: PMC3737030 DOI: 10.1186/1746-6148-9-152
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Figure 1Protection motivation theory as it applies to horse managers’ biosecurity behaviour (adapted from Rogers & Prentice-Dunn, 1975).
Explanatory variables analysed for associations with the perception of perceived vulnerability to a future equine influenza outbreak based on a study of 200 horse owners and managers, conducted in 2009 in NSW, Australia
| Manager demographics and premises descriptors | Agea; Genderb; Number of horsesc; Involved in horse competition/sporting eventsd; Involved in horse racing; Involved in equestrian eventse; Involved in rodeo-style horse eventsf; Horse breeders; Horse agistment or spelling facilityg; Horses kept only for recreation; Horses used for farm work. Premises enterprise typeb; Income derived from horsesa; Regional clusterb. |
| Sources of infection control information during the outbreak | Internet; General media (television, newspaper, radio); Other horse owners; Veterinarians; Other horse professionals (farriers, dentists, chiropractors, trainers, coaches); Australian Horse Industry Council; State Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI); Association/society (breed, sportingd); Horse equipment or feed retailer. |
| Equine influenza outbreak experience and perceptions | Premises infected during the 2007 outbreak; Suspected transmission routeb; Outbreak control zoneb; Perceived stringency of own outbreak biosecurity measuresa; Perceived level of own outbreak stringency compared to horse owners in the neighbourhooda; Perceived level of preparedness for a future equine influenza outbreaka. General interest in infection control informationa; Perceived likelihood of a future equine influenza outbreak in Australia in the next five yearsa; Perceived likelihood of a future other exotic equine disease outbreak in Australia in the next five yearsa. |
All variables are binary (1 = Yes, 0 = No) unless indicated otherwise. aOrdinal variable; bCategorical variable; cContinuous variable; dCompetition/sporting events include horse showing, pony-club, rodeo-style, polo, equestrian and/or racing; eEquestrian events include dressage, showjumping, eventing, and endurance. fRodeo-style horse events include camp-drafting, cutting and barrel-racing; gAgistment is the keeping of other owners’ horses for remuneration, whilst spelling is resting horses on pasture.
Contingency tables and univariable ordinal logistic regression results for the association of explanatory variables with the perception of being not vulnerable to a future equine influenza outbreak ( < 0.20) based on responses of 191 horse owners and managers interviewed in 2009 in NSW, Australia
| | | | | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | ||||
| | | | ||||
| Regional cluster | <0.001 | |||||
| | Northern NSW | 23 (50%) | 18 (39%) | 5 (11%) | 8.32 (3.78, 18.89) | |
| | South-West Sydney | 9 (30%) | 13 (43%) | 8 (27%) | 3.52 (1.50, 8.44) | |
| | Hunter Valley | 13 (30%) | 18 (42%) | 12 (28%) | 3.44 (1.58, 7.63) | |
| | Central Coast | 4 (20%) | 12 (60%) | 4 (20%) | 3.25 (1.27, 8.45) | |
| | North-West Sydney | 11 (20%) | 10 (18%) | 34 (62%) | 1 | |
| Equine influenza outbreak control zone | <0.001 | |||||
| | Restricted zone | 45 (34%) | 60 (46%) | 26 (20%) | 3.66 (2.01, 6.79) | |
| | Special restricted zone | 15 (24%) | 11 (17%) | 37 (59%) | 1 | |
| Suspected equine influenza transmission route during the 2007 outbreak | <0.001 | |||||
| | Wind | 16 (21%) | 24 (31%) | 37 (48%) | 0.27 (0.14, 0.50) | |
| | Direct/indirect | 14 (30%) | 18 (38%) | 15 (32%) | 0.51 (0.25, 1.01) | |
| | Not infected | 30 (43%) | 29 (41%) | 11 (16%) | 1 | |
| Premises infected during the 2007 outbreak | <0.001 | |||||
| | Yes | 30 (24%) | 42 (34%) | 52 (42%) | 0.35 (0.20, 0.60) | |
| | No | 30 (43%) | 29 (41%) | 11 (16%) | 1 | |
| Premise enterprise type | 0.001 | |||||
| | Farm | 18 (51%) | 14 (40%) | 3 (9%) | 4.02 (1.93, 8.59) | |
| | Stud | 8 (47%) | 5 (29%) | 4 (24%) | 2.69 (1.01, 7.45) | |
| | Agistmentb | 6 (38%) | 4 (25%) | 6 (38%) | 1.48 (0.53, 4.18) | |
| | Training | 7 (20%) | 14 (40%) | 14 (40%) | 0.93 (0.45, 1.90) | |
| | Small acreage home | 21 (23%) | 34 (37%) | 36 (40%) | 1 | |
| Involved in equestrian eventsc | 0.003 | |||||
| | Yes | 13 (21%) | 19 (31%) | 29 (38%) | 0.42 (0.23, 0.74) | |
| | No | 47 (35%) | 52 (39%) | 34 (26%) | 1 | |
| Involved in rodeo-style horse eventsd | 0.006 | |||||
| | Yes | 14 (45%) | 14 (45%) | 3 (10%) | 2.68 (1.33, 5.51) | |
| | No | 46 (28%) | 57 (35%) | 60 (37%) | 1 | |
| Involved in horse racing | 0.193 | |||||
| | Yes | 8 (42%) | 7 (37%) | 4 (21%) | 1.78 (0.75, 4.37) | |
| | No | 52 (30%) | 64 (36%) | 59 (34%) | 1 | |
| Received infection control information from sporting/breeding association/societye | 0.003 | |||||
| | Yes | 23 (21%) | 44 (41%) | 41 (38%) | 0.45 (0.26, 0.76) | |
| | No | 37 (43%) | 27 (31%) | 22 (26%) | 1 | |
| Received infection control information from non-veterinarian horse professionalsf | 0.004 | |||||
| | Yes | 11 (18%) | 24 (39%) | 27 (44%) | 0.44 (0.25, 0.76) | |
| | No | 49 (37%) | 47 (36%) | 36 (27%) | 1 | |
| Received infection control information from the internet | 0.034 | |||||
| | Yes | 43 (28%) | 55 (36%) | 55 (36%) | 0.54 (0.26, 0.95) | |
| | No | 17 (41%) | 16 (39%) | 8 (20%) | 1 | |
| Received infection control information from other horse owners | 0.119 | |||||
| | Yes | 40 (29%) | 48 (35%) | 50 (36%) | 0.64 (0.36, 1.12) | |
| | No | 20 (36%) | 23 (41%) | 13 (23%) | 1 | |
| Perceived stringency of own outbreak biosecurity measures | 0.039 | |||||
| | Very stringent/stringent | 34 (26%) | 49 (37%) | 49 (37%) | 0.51 (0.28, 0.92) | |
| | Average/normal | 21 (41%) | 18 (35%) | 12 (24%) | 1 | |
| | Less/not at all stringent | 5 (46%) | 4 (36%) | 2 (18%) | 1.25 (0.37, 4.36) | |
| Perceived level of preparedness for a future equine influenza outbreak | 0.042 | |||||
| | Unprepared | 4 (17%) | 7 (29%) | 13 (54%) | 1 | |
| | Prepared | 35 (32%) | 45 (42%) | 28 (26%) | 2.92 (1.26, 7.03) | |
| | Highly prepared | 21 (36%) | 18 (30%) | 20 (34%) | 2.63 (1.06, 6.73) | |
| Perceived level of general interest in infection control | 0.066 | |||||
| | Very interested | 28 (27%) | 38 (36%) | 39 (37%) | 0.48 (0.19, 1.18) | |
| | Interested | 20 (30%) | 27 (41%) | 19 (29%) | 0.36 (0.15, 0.86) | |
| | Not interested | 12 (52%) | 6 (26%) | 5 (22%) | 1 | |
| Age (years) | 0.045 | |||||
| | >54 | 12 (40%) | 11 (37%) | 7 (23%) | 0.75 (0.26, 2.11) | |
| | 35-54 | 37 (26%) | 54 (38%) | 51 (36%) | 0.40 (0.17, 0.95) | |
| | <35 | 11 (50%) | 6 (27%) | 5 (23%) | 1 | |
| Gender | 0.126 | |||||
| | Male | 22 (35%) | 26 (41%) | 15 (24%) | 1.54 (0.89, 2.68) | |
| Female | 38 (29%) | 45 (34%) | 48 (37%) | 1 | ||
aOdds ratios are based on cumulative logit model and compare the odds of being not vulnerable versus being vulnerable or very vulnerable. For example, the odds ratio of 3.66 for the variable ‘Equine influenza control zone during the 2007 outbreak’ indicates that owners/managers residing in the restricted area in 2007 are 3.66 times more likely to perceive that they are not vulnerable to a future outbreak than those who resided in the special restricted area; bAgistment is the keeping of other owner’s horses for remuneration, whilst spelling is resting horses on pasture; cEquestrian events include dressage, showjumping, eventing, and endurance; dRodeo-style horse events include camp-drafting, cutting and barrel-racing; eSporting organisations include those relevant to horse showing, pony-club, rodeo-style, polo, equestrian and/or racing; fincluding farriers, dentists, chiropractors, trainers and coaches.
Final ordinal logistic regression model of 191 horse owners and managers perception of being not vulnerable to a future equine influenza outbreak, based on a study conducted in New South Wales, Australia in 2009
| Constant 1 | −1.12 | 0.72 | - | - | - | |
| Constant 2 | 0.88 | 0.72 | - | - | - | |
| Received infection control information from a sporting/breeding association/societyb | - | - | - | - | <0.001 | |
| | No | 0 | - | 1 | - | - |
| | Yes | −1.11 | 0.31 | 0.33 | (0.18, 0.61) | - |
| Received infection control information from a non-veterinarian horse professionalc | - | - | - | - | 0.04 | |
| | No | 0 | - | 1 | - | - |
| | Yes | −0.65 | 0.33 | 0.52 | (0.27, 0.99) | - |
| Involved in horse racing | - | - | - | - | 0.006 | |
| | No | 0 | - | 1 | - | - |
| | Yes | 1.54 | 0.55 | 4.67 | (1.63, 13.93) | - |
| Geographic cluster | - | - | - | - | 0.024 | |
| | NW Sydney | 0 | - | 1 | - | - |
| | Central Coast | 1.01 | 0.56 | 2.74 | (0.96, 7.94) | |
| | Hunter Valley | 1.09 | 0.45 | 2.97 | (1.22, 7.38) | |
| | Northern NSW | 1.67 | 0.51 | 5.30 | (1.96, 14.78) | |
| | SW Sydney | 0.78 | 0.48 | 2.19 | (0.84, 5.76) | |
| Suspected equine influenza transmission route during the 2007 outbreak | - | - | - | - | 0.035 | |
| | Not infected | 0 | - | 1 | - | - |
| | Direct or indirect transmission | −0.57 | 0.40 | 0.56 | (0.26, 1.24) | - |
| | Wind transmission | −0.98 | 0.38 | 0.37 | (0.18, 0.78) | - |
| Perceived preparedness for a future equine influenza outbreak | - | - | - | - | 0.023 | |
| | Unprepared | 0 | - | 1 | - | - |
| | Prepared | 0.99 | 0.51 | 2.68 | (1.00, 7.53) | - |
| | Highly prepared | 1.47 | 0.54 | 4.34 | (1.52, 13.11) | - |
| Age | - | - | - | - | 0.323 | |
| | <35 years | 0 | - | 1 | - | - |
| | 35-54 years | −0.68 | 0.47 | 0.51 | (0.19, 1.29) | - |
| | ≥55 years | −0.44 | 0.59 | 0.65 | (0.20, 2.10) | - |
| Gender | - | - | - | - | 0.864 | |
| | Female | 0 | - | 1 | - | - |
| Male | −0.06 | 0.34 | 0.94 | (0.48, 1.83) | - | |
Log likelihood = 64.81; d.f. = 14; P < 0.001; Goodness-of-fit deviance χ2-test statistic P-value = 0.52; Score test = 0.32.
aP-values based on Wald χ2-test of significance; b Sporting organisations include those relevant to horse showing, pony-club, rodeo-style, polo, equestrian and/or racing; c including farriers, dentists, chiropractors, trainers and coaches.