Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

More from ILRI(20)

Advertisement

Recently uploaded(20)

Participatory prevalence estimation: A pilot survey in Kenya

  1. Participatory prevalence estimation: A pilot survey in Kenya Hannah H1, Grace D 1, Randolph T 1 , 13th conference of the International De Glanville W 2 and Fèvre E2 1International Society for Veterinary Epidemiology1 Livestock Research Institute, Kenya 2University of Edinburgh and Economics, 20-24 August 2012
  2. Background Need: locally and globally relevant surveillance tools Increasing applications of participatory methods • Participatory epidemiology (PE) • Participatory disease surveillance (PDS) Traditional veterinary knowledge role contested • Build base of evidence
  3. Objectives I. Determine the sensitivity & specificity of individual farmers to diagnose sick cattle II. Determine the agreement between prevalence estimates from PE surveys and concurrent laboratory analysis for selected health conditions • Anaemia • Fascioliasis • Helminthosis • Trypanosomiasis • Theileriosis (East Coast fever – ECF)
  4. Methods I Individual farmer → individual animal health status • Sensitivity & specificity, PPV & NPV • Farmer: Is animal ill? If yes, name of health condition • Gold standard: physical exam & lab analysis
  5. ‘Gold Standard’ Blood Stool Clinical PCV McMaster Temperature Total protein Kato-Katz MM colour Buffy coat Baermann Skin elasticity Thin blood smear Sedimentation Discharges Thick blood smear Lymph nodes Hemoglobin Ectoparasites Hair coat Anaemia PCV<24 Flukes Haemoparasites: Lungworms Helminths: Validation: Trypanosomes Trypanosomes Strongyles Theileiria spp. ECF Strongoloides Rickettsia Coccidia Anaplasma Monezia Babesia Nematodirus Trichuris
  6. Methods II Community → community herd health status • Difference of proportions • Herd prevalence estimates from PE (100 counters) • “How many animals are sick with [worms] today?” • Herd census & systematic selection n=80/community • Physical exam & lab analysis
  7. Case definitions 1. Intestinal helminths > 50 & >800 eggs/gram 2. Fascioloiasis Any 3. Anaemia PCV<24 4. Trypanosomes PCR + AND anaemia 5. Theileriosis (ECF) PCR+ AND ONE OF fever, lymph nodes, nasal discharge
  8. Results I Lab / clinical diagnosis Farmer N 123 123 Sick 79 29 Anaemia (PCV<24) Cough Fever Diarrhoea Fascioliasis Mastitis Helminths >800 Mavumba* Lungworm Skin Microfilariasis Worms Diagnosis/ Mastitis Infertility Signs Signs: enlarged lymph nodes Staring coat/ lacrimation, (LN) weight loss &/or LN Signs: Ocular discharge Signs: Staring coat Theileirosis (ECF) Trypanosomiasis *Generalized enlarged LN
  9. Results I “Is this animal sick today?” Individual farmer estimate Mean 95% CI Gold Standard Prevalence 62 55.1 72.7 Farmer Sensitivity 24 15.1 35.0 Farmer Specificity 77 62.2 88.5 Positive Predictive Value 65 45.7 82.1 Negative Predictive Value 36 26.5 46.7
  10. Farmer Lab/Clinical Diagnosis + Total Sick Not Sick ECF 9 12 21 ECF & Trypanosomes 0 3 3 ECF & Fascioliasis 1 6 7 Trypanosomes 0 1 1 Trypanosomes & Fascioliasis 0 1 1 Fascioliasis 2 17 19 Fever 1 1 2 Anemia (PCV<24) 0 2 2 Intestinal helminths >800 EPG 2 9 11 Signs: Staring coat* 3 6 9 Signs: Ocular discharge 1 1 2 Healthy 4 13 17 Intestinal helminths >50 EPG 6 22 28 Total 29 94 123
  11. Results II Education: 15% no primary, <30% completed secondary Mixed income: sugar cane, crop farming, livestock, small business, casual employment, others Economic importance of cattle (rank): 4 (rank range 2 - 8) Mixed livestock: cattle, sheep/goats, poultry, pigs, turkeys, ducks Time spent keeping cattle: >200 years/ 5 generations Community herd size mean: 127 (range=80 - 231)
  12. Results II Performance of communities to estimate prevalence Community Lab N Difference Difference (mean) (mean) villages p-value 95% CI Helminthosis 84.1 54.2 10 <0.001 20.5 41.8 (EPG>50) Fascioliasis 68.1 21.1 8 <0.001 35.8 59.2 Anaemia (PCV<24) 52.3 15.6 3 <0.001 25.8 47.8 Trypanosomiasis 40.0 7.2 2 <0.001 28.4 51.4 Theileriosis (ECF) 20.0 2.5 2 <0.001 37.0 50.0
  13. Discussion I. Individual farmers • Under-estimates (70%) • Implications for treatment II. Communities • 5 health conditions of interest • Over-estimates (30%) Implications for interpretation of participatory data Limitations • Small sample size • Non-pastoralists: cattle not first livelihood priority • Incomplete analysis (clustering, lab)
  14. Acknowledgements ILRI, Nairobi EDRSAIA Field Team Eric Fevre Maseno Cleophas Delia Grace John Wando Tom Randolph Peter Omemo Phil Toye John Ohato Evalyne Njiri Gabriel Turasha Steve Kemp VETAID Kenya Field Team Jane Poole PAZ Team, Busia Will De Glanville Lazarus Omoto James Akoko Participating farmers in Western Province, Kenya
  15. International Livestock Research Institute Better lives through livestock Animal agriculture to reduce poverty, hunger and environmental degradation in developing countries ILRI www.ilri.org Thank you
Advertisement