Sero-epidemiology and associated risk factors of brucellosis among sheep and goat population in the south western Nepal: a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Brucellosis is a zoonotic disease caused by Brucella spp. In Nepal, the presence of brucellosis in small ruminants, namely sheep and goats, has impacted farmers' livelihood and the food safety of consumers. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Rupandehi district of Nepal during January to March 2020 to investigate the seroepidemiology and associated risk factors of brucellosis in the sheep and goat population. Altogether, 19 sheep and 60 goat farms in the district were visited. Owners were interviewed to get information on animals, including their management and movement patterns. Three hundred fifty-seven samples (80 sheep and 277 goat samples) were collected proportionately based on farm sizes. Each serum sample was tested with Rose Bengal Test and ELISA to estimate the seropositivity of brucellosis. Logistic regression was carried out to calculate corresponding odds ratios of each variable associated with detection of brucellosis. RESULTS: At the farm level, 31.6% (6/19; 95% CI: 12, 54%) of sheep farms and 3.3% (2/60, 95% CI: 0.9, 11.4%) of goat farms were seropositive to brucellosis. Out of 80 sheep serum samples, 12 (15%; 95% CI: 8.79-24.41%) and out of 277 goat serum samples, three (1.1%; 95% CI: 0.37-3.14%) were seropositive to brucellosis. Age greater than 1.5 years (OR = 5.56, 95% CI: 1.39, 29.38; p = 0.02) and herd size of greater than 100 (OR = 4.74, 95% CI: 1.23, 20.32, p = 0.03) were identified as significant risk factors for seropositivity of brucellosis in the sheep population. While in the goat population, none of the variables was identified as a significant risk factor. CONCLUSION: The study provides evidence that the older sheep and the sheep from the large herds were at higher risk of brucellosis. A control program should be put in place immediately in the sheep population because they may transmit infections to other livestock as they were regularly moved for grazing and selling purposes. Also, strict biosecurity measures should be implemented among pastoralists to prevent brucellosis transmission in them. We suggest further one health-based study to reveal the transmission dynamics of brucellosis between animals and humans.

Meaning of Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) severity score bands: a cross-sectional online study in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To assign clinical meanings to the Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) scores through the development of score bands using the anchor-based approach. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional online study recruited participants through UK-based patient support groups, research support platforms (HealthWise Wales, Autism Research Centre-Cambridge University database, Join Dementia Research) and through social service departments in Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Family members/partners (aged ≥18 years) of patients with different health conditions. INTERVENTION: Family members/partners of patients completed the FROM-16 questionnaire and a Global Question (GQ). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Various FROM-16 band sets were devised as a result of mapping of mean, median and mode of the GQ scores to FROM-16 total score, and receiver operating characteristic-area under the curve cut-off values. The band set with the best agreement with GQ based on weighted kappa was selected. RESULTS: A total of 4413 family members/partners (male=1533, 34.7%; female=2858, 64.8%; Prefer not to say=16, 0.4%; other=6, 0.14%) of people with a health condition (male=1994, 45.2%; female=2400, 54.4%; Prefer not to say=12, 0.3%; other=7, 0.16%) completed the online survey: mean FROM-16 score=15.02 (range 0-32, SD=8.08), mean GQ score=2.32 (range 0-4, SD=1.08). The proposed FROM-16 score bandings are: 0-1=no effect on the quality of life of family member; 2-8=small effect on family member; 9-16=moderate effect on family member; 17-25=very large effect on family member; 26-32=extremely large effect on family member (weighted kappa=0.60). CONCLUSION: The FROM-16 score descriptor bands provide new information to clinicians about interpreting scores and score changes, allowing better-informed treatment decisions for patients and their families. The score banding of FROM-16, along with a short administration time, demonstrates its potential to support holistic clinical practice.

Measuring the impact of COVID-19 on the quality of life of the survivors, partners and family members: a cross-sectional international online survey.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to measure the impact of COVID-19 on the quality of life (QoL) of survivors and their partners and family members. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective cross-sectional global online survey using social media. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COVID-19 and partners or family members (age ≥18 years). INTERVENTION: Online survey from June to August 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The EuroQol group five dimensions three level (EQ-5D-3L) to measure the QoL of survivors of COVID-19, and the Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) to assess the impact on their partner/family member's QoL. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 735 COVID-19 survivors (mean age=48 years; females=563) at a mean of 12.8 weeks after diagnosis and by 571 partners and 164 family members (n=735; mean age=47 years; females=246) from Europe (50.6%), North America (38.5%) and rest of the world (10.9%). The EQ-5D mean score for COVID-19 survivors was 8.65 (SD=1.9, median=9; range=6-14). 81.1% (596/735) reported pain and discomfort, 79.5% (584/735) problems with usual activities, 68.7% (505/735) anxiety and depression and 56.2% (413/735) problems with mobility. Hospitalised survivors (20.1%, n=148) and survivors with existing health conditions (30.9%, n=227) reported significantly more problems with mobility and usual activities (p<0.05), with hospitalised also experiencing more impact on self-care (p≤0.001). Among 735 partners and family members, the mean FROM-16 score (maximum score=highest impact =32) was 15 (median=15, range=0-32). 93.6% (688/735) reported being worried, 81.7% (601/735) frustrated, 78.4% (676/735) sad, 83.3% (612/735) reported impact on their family activities, 68.9% (507/735) on sleep and 68.1% (500/735) on their sex life. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 survivors reported a major persisting impact on their physical and psychosocial health. The lives of their partners and other family members were also severely affected. There is a need for a holistic support system sensitive to the needs of COVID-19 survivors and their family members who experience a major 'secondary burden'.