↓ Skip to main content

Community perceptions of health and rodent-borne diseases along the Inter-Oceanic Highway in Madre de Dios, Peru

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Community perceptions of health and rodent-borne diseases along the Inter-Oceanic Highway in Madre de Dios, Peru
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3420-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriela Salmón-Mulanovich, Amy R. Powell, Stella M. Hartinger-Peña, Lara Schwarz, Daniel G. Bausch, Valerie A. Paz-Soldán

Abstract

Madre de Dios is located in the southeastern Amazonian region of Peru. Rodents have been estimated to be the reservoirs for up to 50 % of emerging zoonotic pathogens, including a host of viruses, bacteria, and parasites. As part of a larger study involving both human and animal research, this study serves to obtain a broader understanding of the key challenges and concerns related to health and rodent-borne illnesses from the perspective of the people living in these communities. We used a mixed methods approach, which comprised of 12 focus group discussions, 34 key informant interviews and the application of a survey (n = 522) in four communities along the Inter-Oceanic Highway (IOH) in Madre de Dios, Peru over a two-year period. Although 90 % of survey respondents answered that rodents can transmit diseases and had seen rodents in their homes and immediate surroundings, most could not name specific rodent-borne diseases and, when probed, described rodents as pests or nuisance animals, but were not concerned about acquiring illnesses from them. Key informant interview data suggests that there has been a perceived increase in the amount of rodents in the communities since the construction of the IOH, however this potential increase was not coupled with increased knowledge about diseases or perceived risks among these key informants. Health providers also mentioned a lack of diagnostic tools specific for rodent-borne illnesses. This may be related to the fact that although a common rodent-borne disease like leptospirosis is frequently detected in the region, it is not routinely and readily diagnosed, therefore the real burden of the disease and exposure risk can be underestimated. If rodent-borne diseases are not on the radar of health professionals, they may not consider presumptive treatment, which could result in unnecessary morbidity and mortality. Awareness of rodent-borne diseases is still lacking in the area, even among health care professionals within the communities, despite the known burden of diseases like leptospirosis. We expect to report further findings as we obtain more information from all the study components.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Unknown 87 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 17%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 31 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 8%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 34 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 August 2016.
All research outputs
#17,812,370
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,501
of 14,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#264,519
of 361,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#329
of 387 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 361,768 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 387 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.