| Literature DB >> 28049444 |
Joseph M Kungu1,2,3, Michel M Dione4, Francis Ejobi5, Michael Ocaido5, Delia Grace6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prevalence studies report Taenia solium cysticercosis in pig and human populations in Uganda. However, the factors influencing occurrence in smallholder pig production systems are not well documented and little is known about farmers' perceptions of T. solium cysticercosis or farmer practices that could reduce transmission.Entities:
Keywords: Humans; Perceptions; Pigs; Risk factors; T. solium; Uganda; Zoonosis
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28049444 PMCID: PMC5209818 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-016-2122-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Characteristics of respondents in the three districts
| Characteristics | Category | Frequency | Percent (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent age-group | <20 years | 17 | 1.6 |
| 20–40years | 405 | 37 | |
| 41–60year | 507 | 46.3 | |
| >60 years | 167 | 15.2 | |
| Sex | Female | 351 | 32 |
| Male | 745 | 68 | |
| Religion | Christian | 1065 | 97.2 |
| Muslim | 4 | 0.4 | |
| SDA | 10 | 0.9 | |
| Traditional beliefs | 17 | 1.6 | |
| Ethnic grouping | Baganda | 670 | 61.1 |
| Basoga | 339 | 30.9 | |
| Banyankole | 15 | 1.4 | |
| Others | 72 | 6.6 | |
| Level of education | Never been | 114 | 10.4 |
| Primary | 550 | 50.2 | |
| Secondary | 349 | 31.8 | |
| Tertiary | 83 | 7.6 | |
| Primary activity | Livestock | 198 | 18.1 |
| Crop farming | 747 | 68.2 | |
| Civil service | 38 | 3.47 | |
| Business | 59 | 5.38 | |
| Others | 54 | 4.93 |
Univariable analysis of risk factors for T. solium cysticercosis in pigs at animal level
| Factor | Number of pigs | Seropositive pigs (%) |
| Odds (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pig category | ||||
| Weanera | 455 | 60(13.2) | - | - |
| Gilt | 25 | 2(8) | 0.457 | 0.572 (0.132–2.490) |
| Castrate | 178 | 28(15.7) | 0.406 | 1.229 (0.756–1.999) |
| Boar | 177 | 17(9.6) | 0.218 | 0.699 (0.396–1.236) |
| Sow | 350 | 37(10.6) | 0.259 | 0.778 (0.503–1.203) |
| At least grazed on pasture | ||||
| Yes | 786 | 101(12.8) | 0.611 | 0.899 (0.597–1.355) |
| Noa | 299 | 35(11.7) | - | - |
| Husbandry systems | ||||
| Intensivea | 501 | 59(11.8) | - | - |
| Free range | 13 | 1(7.7) | 0.354 | 0.709 (0.342–1.469) |
| Tethering | 577 | 75(13) | 0.544 | 0.893 (0.621–1.286) |
| Breed type | ||||
| Locala | 195 | 26(13.3) | - | - |
| Cross | 733 | 104(14.2) | 0.005 | 2.659 (1.349–5.243) |
| Exotic | 256 | 14(5.5) | 0.000 | 2.858 (1.604–5.091) |
| Deworm pigs | ||||
| Yesa | 797 | 102(12.8) | - | - |
| No | 388 | 42(10.9) | 0.337 | 0.829 (0.566–1.215) |
| Source of pig | ||||
| Born on farma | 326 | 42(13.2) | - | - |
| Trader | 758 | 89(11.7) | 0.746 | 0.810 (0.227–2.898) |
| NGO/NAADS | 15 | 2(12.5) | 0.782 | 0.821 (0.119–5.675) |
| Gift | 62 | 7(11.3) | 0.591 | 0.710 (0.119–5.670) |
| Boar pay | 19 | 3(15.8) | 0.604 | 0.679 (0.157–2.930) |
aReference variable
Univariable analysis of risk factors for T. solium cysticercosis at household level
| Factor | Number of pigs | Seropositive pigs (%) |
| Odds (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level of education | ||||
| None | 114 | 11(9.7) | 0.073 | 0.449(0.187–1.079) |
| Primary | 548 | 68(12.4) | 0.06 | 0.452(0.197–1.033) |
| Secondary | 348 | 40(11.5) | 0.089 | 0.593(0.325–1.083) |
| Tertiarya | 83 | 16(19.3) | - | - |
| Training in pig management | ||||
| Yesa | 488 | 62(12.7) | - | - |
| No | 603 | 73(12.1) | 0.397 | 0.728(0.348–1.52) |
| Water sources | ||||
| Unprotecteda | 419 | 37(8.8) | - | - |
| Protected | 677 | 98(14.5) | 0.008 | 0.583(0.391–0.870) |
| Boil water | ||||
| Alwaysa | 638 | 79(12.4) | - | - |
| Never | 453 | 56(12.4) | 0.992 | 1.002(0.695–1.444) |
| Eating pork | ||||
| At least once a month | 640 | 81(12.7) | 0.281 | 0.653(0.3–1.418) |
| After a month | 204 | 20(9.8) | 0.644 | 0.904(0.587–1.39) |
| Nevera | 246 | 34(13.8) | - | - |
| Slaughter at home | ||||
| Once a year | 101 | 8(16.5) | 0.200 | 0.629(0.31–1.278) |
| After a year | 21 | 4(19) | 0.157 | 0.583(0.276–1.231) |
| Nevera | 957 | 123(12.9) | - | - |
| Inspection on slaughter | ||||
| Alwaysa | 11 | 0 | - | - |
| Sometimes | 20 | 3(15) | 0.59 | 0.687(0.175–2.692) |
| Never | 111 | 12(10.8) | 0.999 | 0.000 |
| Presence of latrine | ||||
| No | 133 | 3(6) | 0.384 | 0.729(0.358–1.484) |
| Yesa | 1041 | 132(12.7) | - | - |
| Unable to use latrine | ||||
| Yes | 595 | 90(15.1) | 0.006 | 0.581(0.395–0.855) |
| Noa | 458 | 43(9.4) | - | - |
| Know transmission cycle | ||||
| Yes | 121 | 26(21.5) | 0.002 | 0.463(0.287–0.746) |
| Noa | 975 | 109(11.2) | - | - |
aReference variable
Multivariable analysis of animal and household level risk factors for T. solium cysticercosis
| Variable | B coefficient |
| Odds ratio (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breed type | |||
| Local | Reference | ||
| Cross | 1.17 | 0.001 | 3.221 (1.599–6.488) |
| Exotic | 1.135 | 0.000 | 3.110 (1.733–5.580) |
| Level of education | |||
| None | Reference | ||
| Primary | −0.687 | 0.111 | 0.503 (0.216–1.172) |
| Secondary | −0.443 | 0.161 | 0.642 (0.345–1.194) |
| Tertiary | −0.542 | 0.104 | 0.582 (0.303–1.118) |
| Know transmission cycle | |||
| Yes | −0.743 | 0.003 | 0.476 (0.291–0.779) |
| No | Reference | ||
| Water source | |||
| Unprotected | Reference | ||
| Protected | −0.644 | 0.020 | 0.525 (0.350–0.787) |
| Unable to use latrine | |||
| Yes | Reference | ||
| No | −0.551 | 0.006 | 0.576 (0.389–0.853) |
Proportions of the different variables used to assess level of knowledge on the infection
| Knowledge variable | Taeniosis, n (%) | Human cysticercosis, n (%) | Porcine cysticercosis, n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| How condition clinically manifests | 782 (71.4) | 56 (5.1) | 319 (29.1) |
| How condition is acquired | 780 (71.2) | 22 (2.0) | 127 (11.6) |
| Organs affected | 683 (62.4) | 32 (2.9) | 127 (11.6) |
| Effects of condition | 683 (62.4) | 56 (5.1) | 11 (1.0) |
| How to control condition | 658 (60) | 22 (2.0) | 38 (3.5) |
Fig. 1Responses (%) of farmers on knowledge of taeniosis, Porcine cysticercosis, Human cysticercosis
Average proportions of knowledge of the condition by gender, level of education and districts
| Categories | Taeniosis (%) | Porcine cysticercosis (%) | Human cysticercosis (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 495/745 (66.4) | 107/745 (14.4) | 29/745 (3.9) |
| Female | 223/351 (63.5) | 18/351 (5.1) | 8/351 (2.2) |
| Level of education | |||
| None | 71/114 (62.3) | 18/114 (15.8) | 4/114 (3.5) |
| Primary | 344/550 (62.6) | 71/550 (12.9) | 19/550 (3.5) |
| Secondary | 224/349 (64.2) | 18/349 (5.2) | 12/349 (3.4) |
| Tertiary | 79/83 (95.2) | 18/83 (21.7) | 2/83 (2.4) |
| District | |||
| Kamuli | 160/400 (40.0) | 40/400 (10.0) | 6/400 (1.5) |
| Masaka | 259/324 (79.9) | 67/324 (20.7) | 16/324 (4.9) |
| Mukono | 293/372 (78.8) | 18/372 (4.8) | 15/372 (4.0) |
Proportions of responses on deworming practices associated with control of T. solium cysticercosis
| Deworming practice | Kamuli | Masaka | Mukono | Total, n (%) |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deworming pigs | 4.295 | 0.000 | ||||
| Yes | 303 | 357 | 371 | 1031 (94.1) | ||
| No | 39 | 18 | 8 | 65 (6.3) | ||
| Deworm pigs how often | 3.495 | 0.000 | ||||
| 3 months interval | 94 | 178 | 216 | 488 (44.5) | ||
| Once a month | 131 | 110 | 93 | 334 (30.5) | ||
| > 3 months interval | 84 | 64 | 61 | 209 (25.0) | ||
| Drugs used | ||||||
| Albendazole | 122 | 229 | 209 | 932 (85.0) | ||
| Ivermectin | 33 | 23 | 108 | 164 (15.0) | ||
| Deworming self and family | 4.97 | 0.000 | ||||
| Yes | 143 | 244 | 293 | 680 (62.0) | ||
| No | 197 | 129 | 90 | 416 (38.0) | ||
| How often | 2.338 | 0.000 | ||||
| Once a month | 44 | 50 | 20 | 114 (16.8) | ||
| 3 months interval | 42 | 117 | 167 | 326 (47.9) | ||
| > 3 months | 57 | 77 | 106 | 240 (35.3) | ||
| Drugs used | 2.492 | 0.000 | ||||
| Albendazole | 122 | 228 | 204 | 554 (81.5) | ||
| Ivermectin | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 (0.15) | ||
| Praziquantel | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 (0.74) | ||
| Others | 23 | 13 | 84 | 120 (17.7) |
Proportions of responses on hand washing practices associated with control of taeniosis-T. solium cysticercosis
| Practice | Masaka | Mukono | Kamuli | Total, n (%) |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Practice hand washing | 0.698 | 0.706 | ||||
| Yes | 203 | 201 | 194 | 598 (54.6) | ||
| No | 185 | 163 | 150 | 498 (45.4) | ||
| Presence of clean water and soap | 16.944 | 0.00 | ||||
| Both present | 172 | 174 | 113 | 459 (76.8) | ||
| Only water present | 217 | 200 | 220 | 139 (23.2) |