Dataset Information

The effectiveness of biosecurity interventions in reducing the transmission of bacteria from livestock to humans at the farm level: A systematic literature review.

ABSTRACT: Zoonotic bacterial infections are a health hazard for people who are in regular contact with livestock at the farm level. Improved biosecurity can limit zoonotic pathogen transmission within farms. The aim of this review was to summarize the effectiveness of farm-level biosecurity interventions in reducing bacterial transmission from animals to people who lived, worked in or visited farms. A systematic literature review was conducted using Embase, Ovid Medline and Agris databases, which were searched on 7^th of July 2019, limited to English language papers but with no time exclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis was undertaken utilizing the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination approach, reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Risk of bias within and across the included studies was performed using established checklists. Out of 869 studies retrieved through database searches, 11 studies were selected. In addition, three studies were found through study reference lists. Fourteen studies were therefore included in this review. Biosecurity interventions were grouped into five categories: hand washing, sanitization and hygienic measures (six studies); personal protective equipment (five studies); vaccination (two studies); other interventions (e.g. air ventilation flap) (four studies); and routine farm activities (two studies). Across studies that investigated odds of human colonization or infection (three studies), odds were seen to both be increased and decreased through use of tested biosecurity measures. Large confidence intervals that often crossed the threshold of an odds ratio equal to 1 were found. Most of the studies' overall risk of bias was 'medium risk' (11 studies), with selection bias domains generally being scored 'medium risk.' Biosecurity interventions are potentially beneficial in reducing bacterial transmission from animals to humans. However, more high-quality evidence is needed to increase certainty in which interventions, in which contexts, are most effective from the human health perspective.

SUBMITTER: Youssef DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8451914 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In a globalized world, the frequency of transboundary livestock infectious diseases is increasing, and strengthening of farm biosecurity is vital to stabilize food production. The aim of this study was to understand the decision-making process for farm biosecurity among Japanese livestock farmers. Postal surveys using structured questionnaires were conducted on beef, dairy, pig, and layer farms in Hokkaido and Saitama Prefectures, which represent the principal production area and peri-urban Tokyo, respectively, as well as randomly selected broiler farms across Japan. The question items included the attributes of farms and owners, disease experiences, related associations and sources of hygiene information, attitude toward hygiene management, and compliance with the Standards of Rearing Hygiene Management (SRHM). The compliance rates were compared between livestock sectors. Univariable analyses were conducted using combined data from both prefectures, with the compliance rate as the outcome variable and the questionnaire items as explanatory variables, in generalized linear models. Exploratory factor analyses were conducted using the variables with p < 0.2 in the univariable analyses. The factors identified were classified into knowledge, attitude, capacity, practice, and structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed. The questionnaires were completed and returned by 97 and 66 beef cattle, 86 and 136 dairy, 67 and 45 pig, 20 and 39 layer farmers in Hokkaido and Saitama Prefectures, respectively, and 95 broiler farms. The compliance rate was significantly higher among broiler farms (88.9%) compared with the other sectors, followed by pig (77.1%), layer (67.2%), dairy (63.8%), and beef (59.1%) farms in Hokkaido Prefecture, and layer (64.9%), pig (60.0%), dairy (58.5%), and beef (57.6%) farms in Saitama Prefecture. Based on SEM, the decision-making process from greater knowledge to higher attitude, and from higher attitude to greater compliance with the SRHM were significant (p < 0.01) in all sectors. Higher capacity was significantly associated with higher knowledge in dairy, pig,break and layer farms (p < 0.01), and with higher compliance in beef, pig, and layer farms (p < 0.05). These results suggest that the provision of targeted hygiene knowledge to livestock farmers and the support to smallholder farms would improve biosecurity through elevated attitudes and self-efficacy.

Project description:BackgroundMalaria is transmitted through the bite of Plasmodium-infected adult female Anopheles mosquitoes. Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug, acts by killing mosquitoes that are exposed to the drug while feeding on the blood of people (known as blood feeds) who have ingested the drug. This effect on mosquitoes has been demonstrated by individual randomized trials. This effect has generated interest in using ivermectin as a tool for malaria control.ObjectivesTo assess the effect of community administration of ivermectin on malaria transmission.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group (CIDG) Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation index - expanded, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER database to 14 January 2021. We checked the reference lists of included studies for other potentially relevant studies, and contacted researchers working in the field for unpublished and ongoing trials.Selection criteriaWe included cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs) that compared ivermectin, as single or multiple doses, with a control treatment or placebo given to populations living in malaria-endemic areas, in the context of mass drug administration. Primary outcomes were prevalence of malaria parasite infection and incidence of clinical malaria in the community.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently extracted data on the number of events and the number of participants in each trial arm at the time of assessment. For rate data, we noted the total time at risk in each trial arm. To assess risk of bias, we used Cochrane's RoB 2 tool for cRCTs. We documented the method of data analysis, any adjustments for clustering or other covariates, and recorded the estimate of the intra-cluster correlation (ICC) coefficient. We re-analysed the trial data provided by the trial authors to adjust for cluster effects. We used a Poisson mixed-effect model with small sample size correction, and a cluster-level analysis using the linear weighted model to adequately adjust for clustering. MAIN RESULTS: We included one cRCT and identified six ongoing trials. The included cRCT examined the incidence of malaria in eight villages in Burkina Faso, randomized to two arms. Both trial arms received a single dose of ivermectin 150 µg/kg to 200 µg/kg, together with a dose of albendazole. The villages in the intervention arm received an additional five doses of ivermectin, once every three weeks. Children were enrolled into an active cohort, in which they were repeatedly screened for malaria infection. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of uncomplicated malaria in a cohort of children aged five years and younger, over the 18-week study. We judged the study to be at high risk of bias, as the analysis did not account for clustering or correlation between participants in the same village. The study did not demonstrate an effect of Ivermectin on the cumulative incidence of uncomplicated malaria in the cohort of children over the 18-week study (risk ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.17; P = 0.2607; very low-certainty evidence).Authors' conclusionsWe are uncertain whether community administration of ivermectin has an effect on malaria transmission, based on one trial published to date.

Project description:Biosecurity measures have been introduced to limit economic losses and zoonotic exposures to humans by preventing and controlling animal diseases. However, they are implemented on individual farms with varying frequency. The goal of this study was to evaluate which biosecurity measures were used by farmers to prevent infectious diseases in ruminant livestock and to identify factors that influenced these decisions. We conducted a survey in 264 ruminant livestock farmers in a 40,000 km2 area in the Free State and Northern Cape provinces of South Africa. We used descriptive statistics, to characterize biosecurity measures and farm attributes, then multivariable binomial regression to assess the strength of the association between the attributes and the implementation of biosecurity measures including property fencing, separate equipment use on different species, separate rearing of species, isolation of sick animals, isolation of pregnant animals, quarantine of new animals, animal transport cleaning, vaccination, tick control and insect control. Ninety-nine percent of farmers reported using at least one of the 10 biosecurity measures investigated (median [M]: 6; range: 0-10). The most frequently used biosecurity measures were tick control (81%, 214 out of 264), vaccination (80%, 211 out of 264) and isolation of sick animals (72%, 190 out of 264). More biosecurity measures were used on farms with 65-282 animals (M: 6; odds ratio [OR]: 1.52) or farms with 283-12,030 animals (M: 7; OR: 1.87) than on farms with fewer than 65 animals (M: 4). Furthermore, farmers who kept two animal species (M: 7; OR: 1.41) or three or more species (M: 7) used more biosecurity measures than single-species operations (M: 4). Farmers with privately owned land used more biosecurity measures (M: 6; OR: 1.51) than those grazing their animals on communal land (M: 3.5). Farms that reported previous Rift Valley fever (RVF) outbreaks used more biosecurity measures (M: 7; OR: 1.25) compared with farms without RVF reports (M: 6) and those that purchased animals in the 12 months prior to the survey (M: 7; OR: 1.19) compared with those that did not (M: 6). When introducing new animals into their herds (n = 122), most farmers used fewer biosecurity measures than they did for their existing herd: 34% (41 out of 122) used multiple biosecurity measures like those of vaccination, tick control, quarantine or antibiotic use, whereas 36% (44 out of 122) used only one and 30% (37 out of 122) used none. Certain farm features, primarily those related to size and commercialization, were associated with more frequent use of biosecurity measures. Given the variation in the application of biosecurity measures, more awareness and technical assistance are needed to support the implementation of a biosecurity management plan appropriate for the type of farm operation and available resources.

Project description:BackgroundOn-farm biosecurity is an important part of disease prevention and control, this applies to live animal contacts as well as indirect contacts e.g. via professionals visiting farms in their work. The objectives of this study were to investigate how professionals visiting animal farms in Sweden in their daily work perceive the on-farm conditions for biosecurity, the factors that influence their own biosecurity routines and what they describe as obstacles for biosecurity. Suggestions for improvements were also asked for. Questionnaires were distributed to professionals visiting farms in their daily work; veterinarians, livestock hauliers, artificial insemination technicians, animal welfare inspectors and cattle hoof trimmers. The sample was a convenience sample, based on accessibility to registers or collaboration with organisations distributing the questionnaire. Respondents were asked about the availability of certain biosecurity conditions related to farm visits, e.g. if facilities for hand washing were available, how important different factors were for their own routines and, through open ended questions, to describe obstacles and suggestions for improvement.ResultsAfter data cleaning, there were responses from 368 persons. There was a difference in the proportion of visited farms reported to have certain biosecurity measures in place related to animal species present on the farm. In general, visited pig farms had a higher proportion of biosecurity measures in place, whereas the conditions were poorer on sheep and goat farms and horse farms. There were also differences between the visitor categories; the perceived conditions for biosecurity varied between the groups, e.g. livestock hauliers did not have access to hand washing facilities as often as veterinarians did. In all groups, a majority of the respondents perceived obstacles for on-farm biosecurity, among veterinarians 66% perceived that there were obstacles. Many of the reported obstacles related to the very basics of biosecurity, such as access to soap and water. Responsibility was identified to be a key issue; while some farmers expect visitors to take responsibility for keeping up biosecurity they do not provide the adequate on-farm conditions.ConclusionsMany of the respondents reported obstacles for keeping good biosecurity related to on-farm conditions. There was a gap when it came to responsibility which needs to be clarified. Visitors need to take responsibility for avoiding spread of disease, while farmers need to assume responsibility for providing adequate conditions for on-farm biosecurity.

Dataset Information

The effectiveness of biosecurity interventions in reducing the transmission of bacteria from livestock to humans at the farm level: A systematic literature review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets