Perceptions of the impact of deworming
activity in the emergency drought response:
Northern Kenya 2011
Okell, C.N., Mariner, J.C., Allport, R., Rushton, J.R., Verheyen, K.L.P.
PENAPHPENAPHPENAPHPENAPH

Introduction
Drought: “Failure of two consecutive rainy seasons”
•Primary natural hazard of Kenya
•Arid and semi arid lands
-80% land area
-33% human population
-70% livestock population
•Livestock contribute up to
95% household income
10% of government
agricultural expenditure

Introduction
2008 – 2011
•Failure of all but one rainy season
•Livestock mortality rates: Cattle 65%, sheep 62%, goat 34%,
donkey 6%, camel 1% *
Drought response involved multiple actors
•121 livestock interventions
(cf 21 in 00/01)
•Water holes, animal health,
destocking etc.
•Excess of one million anthelmintic
doses administered
•“Maintain food conversion efficiency”

Aims and Objectives
“To assess how emergency anthelmintic provision met the needs
of livestock species and livestock-owning households in drought
affected Isiolo and Marsabit, Northern Kenya.”
1.To identify the perceived relative importance of internal
parasites relative to other causes of morbidity.
1.To identify how livestock owners prevent internal parasites,
stakeholders involved and the role of the emergency response.
1.To measure the perceived effect of emergency deworming on
livestock output.

Methodology
Study design
• 2 stage sampling technique: Manyatta (village)& individual
• Inclusion criteria: security and cultural considerations
• Sample size geographically representative and based on
time restraints
Data collection tools
• PRA’s: Seasonality calendars, ranking, before and after
scoring& general discussion.
• Semi structured interviews; households
• Key informant interviews; those with different perceptions
Analysis
• Ranks to scores
• Non-parametric statistical analysis: Friedmans & Wilcoxon
rank sum, Welch t-test.

Results: Study population
• 23 PRA’s, 112 household interviews and 20 key informant
Interviews
• 100% study population received food aid 12months/ year
• All were reliant on livestock as their sole form of livelihood
security
Preliminary questions
• Identified outputs of livestock
that contributed to household livelihood
• Identified 6 stages of a drought period
• PP trends of 3 indicators of output

Results: Measuringchangesin output
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Dry season 08 Prolonged dry Drought Peak of drought
'11
After rains '11 April'12
Medianproportionpile
A line graph of the perceived relative change in 3 indicators of output of small
ruminants in 6 stages of drought: 2008 - 2012
Milk
Weight
Number of heads sold

Result 1: Identifyingfactorsthataffectoutputin
droughtsandtheperceivedrelativeimportanceofinternal
parasites
• Loss of pasture primary cause of decline
• Disease occurrence second

Result 1: Identifyingfactorsthataffectoutputin
droughtsandtheperceivedrelativeimportanceofinternal
parasites

Result 1: Identifyingfactorsthataffectoutputin
droughtsandtheperceivedrelativeimportanceofinternal
parasites
Isiolo
“Disease you may not see
specific signs of.... poor coat and
weight loss ....but always there”
“Not considered as a disease as
there all the time in all animals
and they carry on with signs.”
Marsabit (North Horr)
“No signs are seen.... told that
they cause emaciation but not
observed.”
““Some may see in intestines on
slaughter but no signs when
alive.”
PRAStudyPopulation

• All participants of PRA’s and SSI’s identified salt water or
grazing areas with high levels of salt as a preventative cause
of helminths
• PRA’s- differing perception of anthelmintic use
• Household interviews showed different practice of
anthelmintic use
Result 2: Howlivestock ownerspreventinternalparasites,
stakeholdersinvolvedandtheroleof theemergencyresponse

Result 2: Howlivestock ownerspreventinternalparasites,
stakeholdersinvolvedandtheroleof theemergencyresponse
Isiolo
100% PRA 71% HHI
10% Albendazole (rain)
2.5% Albendazole or Levamisole (dry)
Marsabit
“Albendazole”
Unknown
75% PRA 42% HHI
Agro-veterinary stores “Duka” or CBAHW
All PRA’s from both areas claimed to purchase antibiotics,
acaracides and anti-tryps from these sources
Anthelmintic use

• Household interviews used to assess behavioural differences
Result 2: Howlivestock ownerspreventinternalparasites,
stakeholdersinvolved:theroleoftheemergency response

• No evidence of a perceived effect when used in dry or drought
period
• Seasonal differences in the perceived effect of anthelmintic
use in drought prone areas
Result 3: Perceptionsoftheeffectsof emergency
anthelminticuse

Discussion/ Conclusion
Evidence of an epidemiological difference between areas:
• Difference in the perception of evidence of presence of
helminths
• Behavioral difference in decision making for anthelmintic
use & unanimous use of salt as preventative
• Environmental observations complemented data

Conclusion
• Evidence livestock owners capacities to meet livestock
health needs – different animal health service delivery
infrastructure
• Inter-household economic differences likely to determine
purchasing power
• Emergency response likely to meet the needs of some
unable to purchase
BUT
• There is no evidence of a perceived benefit to
administering anthelmintic in droughts.
• Further study to quantify attributable effect during rains

Acknowledgements
• Facilitators and translators: Adano Gollo Umuro, John
Gitobu, Boru Tarole, Abdi Guyo
• Participants, chief and assistant chiefs of locations
Nico Buono, Stephen Kimondiu
• Dr. Sief Maloo, Diana Onyango, Isaac Lubutsi
PENAPHPENAPHPENAPHPENAPH

cokell@rvc.ac.uk