Prioritization of livestock diseases by pastoralists in Oloitoktok Sub County, Kajiado County, Kenya.

IntroductionLivestock diseases are a big challenge for the livelihood of pastoralists in sub-Saharan Africa because they reduce livestock productivity and increase mortality. Based on the literature available there is limited understanding on how pastoralists prioritize these diseases in the context of their culture, ecosystems and livelihoods. A study was conducted to provide insights on lay prioritization of animal diseases by pastoralists in Kenya.MethodologyA qualitative study was undertaken between March and July 2021. Thirty in-depth interviews and six focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with community members to explore community attitudes on livestock diseases prioritization. Male and female livestock keepers were purposively selected and interviewed and they were all long-term residents of the area. Fourteen key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted with professionals from different key sectors to provide detailed stakeholder perspectives on livestock diseases. The interviews were analyzed thematically using the QSR Nvivo software to identify the emerging themes related to the study objectives.ResultsThe pastoralists prioritized livestock diseases based on effect on their economic wellbeing, cultural values and utilization of ecosystem services. There were gender variabilities in how diseases were prioritized among the pastoralists. Men cited high priority diseases as foot and mouth disease and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia due to their regular occurrence and effect on livelihood. Notably, women regarded coenuruses as very important because it affected sheep and goats with a high mortality rate and lumpy skin disease because it rendered the meat from the carcasses inedible. Malignant catarrhal fever and trypanosomiasis were noted as some of the common diseases in the livestock-wildlife interface but not cited as priority diseases. Challenges related to disease control in pastoralist contexts exist including limited access to livestock treatment services, inadequate information on disease impact and complex environmental factors.ConclusionThis study sheds light on the body of knowledge in Kenya regarding livestock diseases and their prioritization by livestock keepers. This could aid in the development of a common disease control framework and prioritization at the local level which would take into consideration the dynamic socio-cultural, ecological, livelihood and economic contexts of the communities

Establishing a field epidemiology elective for medical students in Kenya: A strategy for increasing public health awareness and workforce capacity

Medical students have limited exposure to field epidemiology, even though will assume public health roles after graduation. We established a 10-week elective in field epidemiology during medical school. Students attended one-week didactic sessions on epidemiology, and nine weeks in field placement sites. We administered pre- and post-tests to evaluate the training. We enrolled 34 students in 2011 and 2012. In 2011, we enrolled five of 24 applicants from a class of 280 medical students. In 2012, we enrolled 18 of 81 applicants from a class of 360 students; plus 11 who participated in the didactic sessions only. Among the 34 students who completed the didactic sessions, 74% were male, and their median age was 24 years (range: 22–26). The median pre-test score was 64% (range: 47–88%) and the median post-test score was 82% (range: 72–100%). Successful completion of the field projects was 100%. Six (30%) students were not aware of public health as a career option before this elective, 56% rated the field experience as outstanding, and 100% reported it increased their understanding of epidemiology. Implementing an elective in field epidemiology within the medical training is a highly acceptable strategy to increase awareness for public health among medical students

Attitudes towards vaccines and intention to vaccinate against COVID-19: a cross-sectional analysis - implications for public health communications in Australia

Objective To examine SARS-CoV-2 vaccine confidence, attitudes and intentions in Australian adults as part of the iCARE Study. Design and setting Cross-sectional online survey conducted when free COVID-19 vaccinations first became available in Australia in February 2021. Participants Total of 1166 Australians from general population aged 18-90 years (mean 52, SD of 19). Main outcome measures Primary outcome: responses to question € If a vaccine for COVID-19 were available today, what is the likelihood that you would get vaccinated?'. Secondary outcome: analyses of putative drivers of uptake, including vaccine confidence, socioeconomic status and sources of trust, derived from multiple survey questions. Results Seventy-eight per cent reported being likely to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Higher SARS-CoV-2 vaccine intentions were associated with: increasing age (OR: 2.01 (95% CI 1.77 to 2.77)), being male (1.37 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.72)), residing in least disadvantaged area quintile (2.27 (95% CI 1.53 to 3.37)) and a self-perceived high risk of getting COVID-19 (1.52 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.14)). However, 72% did not believe they were at a high risk of getting COVID-19. Findings regarding vaccines in general were similar except there were no sex differences. For both the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and vaccines in general, there were no differences in intentions to vaccinate as a function of education level, perceived income level and rurality. Knowing that the vaccine is safe and effective and that getting vaccinated will protect others, trusting the company that made it and vaccination recommended by a doctor were reported to influence a large proportion of the study cohort to uptake the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Seventy-eight per cent reported the intent to continue engaging in virus-protecting behaviours (mask wearing, social distancing, etc) postvaccine. Conclusions Most Australians are likely to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Key influencing factors identified (eg, knowing vaccine is safe and effective, and doctor's recommendation to get vaccinated) can inform public health messaging to enhance vaccination rates