Rodent–Human Interface: Behavioral Risk Factors and Leptospirosis in a Province in the Central Region of Thailand
2
Issued Date
2022-02-01
Resource Type
eISSN
23067381
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85125150436
Journal Title
Veterinary Sciences
Volume
9
Issue
2
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Veterinary Sciences Vol.9 No.2 (2022)
Suggested Citation
Suwannarong K., Soonthornworasiri N., Maneekan P., Yimsamran S., Balthip K., Maneewatchararangsri S., Saisongkorh W., Saengkul C., Sangmukdanun S., Phunta N., Singhasivanon P. Rodent–Human Interface: Behavioral Risk Factors and Leptospirosis in a Province in the Central Region of Thailand. Veterinary Sciences Vol.9 No.2 (2022). doi:10.3390/vetsci9020085 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/87091
Title
Rodent–Human Interface: Behavioral Risk Factors and Leptospirosis in a Province in the Central Region of Thailand
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
This sequential explanatory mixed-method study consisted of analytical, cross-sectional, and qualitative studies. The research was conducted in the Khao Nor and Khao Kaew areas of the Banphot Pisai districts of Nakhon Sawan Province in 2019. Here, we examined the rodent contact characteristics of villagers in these areas and determined the potential characteristics/risk factors associated with rodents using a semi-structured questionnaire, key informant interview (KII), and focus group discussion (FGD). Results of the quantitative study (N1 = 372) characterized participants that contacted rodents per gender, age, occupation, knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP), including their cultural contexts, and beliefs. Ninety participants (24.2%) reported contact with rodents, and the reasons for their direct physical rodent contact were hunting (35, 9.4%), killing (41, 11.0%), preparing rodents as food (33, 8.9%), consuming cooked meats (12, 3.2%), feeding food (4, 1.1%), cleaning feces (17, 4.6%), and cleaning carcasses (33, 8.9%). Moreover, logistic regression results showed that males encountering rodents were statistically significant (Adjusted OR = 3.137, 95% CI 1.914–5.139, p < 0.001). Low monthly household income (<THB 15,000 or <USD 450) was also negatively statistically significant with encountering rodents (Adjusted OR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.33–0.99, p = 0.04). Additionally, the villagers had a low level of knowledge toward zoonotic diseases and inappropriate attitudes and practices toward contacting rodents and zoonotic diseases. Thirty-five qualitative study participants (N2) participated in the KIIs and FGDs. Various rodent contact activities were also reported among the qualitative research participants, such as hunting, consumption, and selling them to their friends and neighbors. However, these rodents also destroyed their belongings, crops, and plants. Some participants also reported that rodents accounted for leptospirosis transmission. As a result, communication intervention should be planned to provide appropriate knowledge and attitude to the villagers, especially among those who have close contact with rodents in the understudied area.