↓ Skip to main content

Understanding the failure of a behavior change intervention to reduce risk behaviors for avian influenza transmission among backyard poultry raisers in rural Bangladesh: a focused ethnography

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

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
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
Understanding the failure of a behavior change intervention to reduce risk behaviors for avian influenza transmission among backyard poultry raisers in rural Bangladesh: a focused ethnography
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3543-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nadia Ali Rimi, Rebeca Sultana, Kazi Ishtiak-Ahmed, Md Zahidur Rahman, Marufa Hasin, M. Saiful Islam, Eduardo Azziz-Baumgartner, Nazmun Nahar, Emily S. Gurley, Stephen P. Luby

Abstract

The spread of the highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 virus among poultry and humans has raised global concerns and has motivated government and public health organizations to initiate interventions to prevent the transmission of HPAI. In Bangladesh, H5N1 became endemic in poultry and seven human H5N1 cases have been reported since 2007, including one fatality. This study piloted messages to increase awareness about avian influenza and its prevention in two rural communities, and explored change in villagers' awareness and behaviors attributable to the intervention. During 2009-10, a research team implemented the study in two rural villages in two districts of Bangladesh. The team used a focused ethnographic approach for data collection, including informal interviews and observations to provide detailed contextual information about community response to a newly emerging disease. They collected pre-intervention qualitative data for one month. Then another team disseminated preventive messages focused on safe slaughtering methods, through courtyard meetings and affixed posters in every household. After dissemination, the research team collected post-intervention data for one month. More villagers reported hearing about 'bird flu' after the intervention compared to before the intervention. After the intervention, villagers commonly recalled changes in the color of combs and shanks of poultry as signs of avian influenza, and perceived zoonotic transmission of avian influenza through direct contact and through inhalation. Consequently the villagers valued covering the nose and mouth while handling sick and dead poultry as a preventive measure. Nevertheless, the team did not observe noticeable change in villagers' behavior after the intervention. Villagers reported not following the recommended behaviors because of the perceived absence of avian influenza in their flocks, low risk of avian influenza, cost, inconvenience, personal discomfort, fear of being rebuked or ridiculed, and doubt about the necessity of the intervention. The villagers' awareness about avian influenza improved after the intervention, however, the intervention did not result in any measurable improvement in preventive behaviors. Low cost approaches that promote financial benefits and minimize personal discomfort should be developed and piloted.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 110 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 21%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 26 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 14%
Social Sciences 11 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 9 8%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 33 30%
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 26 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,337,788
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#13,947
of 14,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#298,076
of 341,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#384
of 407 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,925 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 341,481 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 407 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.