RESUMO
The exposure to Brucella species is an occupational hazard for veterinary personnel in India. In our previous study, paraveterinarians and animal handlers were found to be at higher risk of being seropositive. In the present study, we further investigate comparative exposure risk to brucellosis amongst the veterinary professionals, identify risk factors, and evaluate the perceptions and practices towards using adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) while attending high risk veterinary interventions. A cross-sectional study was conducted amongst veterinary personnel in the Punjab state of India. Logistic and negative binomial regression models were constructed to interpret the influence of categorical and numerical variables on prevalence of brucellosis and the adequacy of PPE use, respectively. Compared to veterinarians, animal handlers were less likely to consider veterinary practice in sheep and goats (odds ratio [OR] 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.2-0.7) or assisting in obstetric interventions (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.8) as potential exposures. They were less aware of the signs and symptoms of the disease in humans (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02-0.14) and of the availability of vaccines for cattle (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.3) than the veterinarians, and were least likely of the three groups to recommend vaccination of cattle against brucellosis to animal owners (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.02-0.3). Compared to veterinarians, they were also less likely to consider zoonotic risk (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.8) or better efficiency (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.05-0.4) as enablers of PPE use during veterinary procedures. Of the three occupational groups, animal handlers were also less likely to use adequate PPE during high-risk veterinary exposures, although they were found to have handled the highest number of cases of abortion. The average use of adequate PPE during high-risk interventions in one month preceding this study was lowest for animal handlers. Veterinary personnel with a higher rate of PPE use during high-risk veterinary interventions were likely to obtain information on brucellosis from government sources (p = 0.06) and felt that PPE use enhanced their professional efficiency (Incidence rate ratio [IRR] 3.3, 95% CI 1.5-8.1) compared to those who were less likely to use adequate PPE. We recommend concerted efforts to increase awareness amongst veterinary personnel, particularly amongst animal handlers, regarding brucellosis and the importance of biosecurity measures in veterinary practice. Designing training courses on the importance of PPE use along with formulation of biosecurity guidelines at local levels could help reduce the prevalence of the disease in veterinary personnel.
RESUMO
Bovine brucellosis is a neglected zoonotic disease prevalent in several developing countries including India. It has been successfully controlled in many developed countries by using vaccination in conjunction with extensive surveillance and test-and-cull approaches, but some of these approaches do not suit Indian culture and norms. This study was conducted to investigate the feasibility and social acceptability of various bovine brucellosis control strategies in India. Focus group discussions and key-informant interviews were conducted with veterinarians, para-veterinarians, veterinary academics, farmers and other stakeholders. Vaccination with the Brucella strain 19 vaccine was considered feasible, but the participants were concerned about the risk of self-inoculation, the inability to vaccinate pregnant and male animals, the difficulty to differentiate vaccinated from diseased animals and the challenges of maintaining the vaccine cold chain in India. As expected, the test-and-cull approach was not considered feasible as cattle are considered sacred by Hindus and their slaughter is banned in most states. Although the test-and-segregation approach appears reasonable in theory, it would have low acceptability, if implemented without providing any compensation to farmers. Negligible biosecurity was implemented by farmers: almost no biosecurity procedures were performed for visitors entering a farm, and testing of animals was rarely undertaken before introducing them to a farm. However, the participants considered that improving biosecurity would be more acceptable and feasible than both the test-and-cull and the test-and-segregation approaches. Similarly, inadequate personal protection was used by veterinary personnel for handling parturition, retention of placenta and abortion cases; this was considered as another area of possible improvement. Farmers and veterinarians expressed serious concerns about stray cattle as many of them could potentially be infected with brucellosis, and thus could spread the infection between farms. This study recommends using vaccination and biosecurity along with some ancillary strategies to control brucellosis in India. Information from the study could be used to develop an evidence-based disease control program for the disease in the country.