BackgroundMicro-organisms transmitted from vertebrate animals – including livestock – to humans account for an estimated 60% of human pathogens. Micro-organisms can be transmitted through inhalation, ingestion, via conjunctiva or physical contact. Close contact with animals is crucial for transmission. The role of intensity and type of contact patterns between livestock and humans for disease transmission is poorly understood. In this systematic review we aimed to summarise current knowledge regarding patterns of human–livestock contacts and their role in micro-organism transmission.MethodsWe included peer-reviewed publications published between 1996 and 2014 in our systematic review if they reported on human–livestock contacts, human cases of livestock-related zoonotic diseases or serological epidemiology of zoonotic diseases in human samples. We extracted any information pertaining the type and intensity of human–livestock contacts and associated zoonoses.Results1522 papers were identified, 75 were included: 7 reported on incidental zoonoses after brief animal–human contacts (e.g. farm visits), 10 on environmental exposures and 15 on zoonoses in developing countries where backyard livestock keeping is still customary. 43 studies reported zoonotic risks in different occupations. Occupations at risk included veterinarians, culling personnel, slaughterhouse workers and farmers. For culling personnel, more hours exposed to livestock resulted in more frequent occurrence of transmission. Slaughterhouse workers in contact with live animals were more often positive for zoonotic micro-organisms compared to co-workers only exposed to carcasses. Overall, little information was available about the actual mode of micro-organism transmission.ConclusionsLittle is known about the intensity and type of contact patterns between livestock and humans that result in micro-organism transmission. Studies performed in occupational settings provide some, but limited evidence of exposure response-like relationships for livestock–human contact and micro-organism transmission. Better understanding of contact patterns driving micro-organism transmission from animals to humans is needed to provide options for prevention and thus deserves more attention.

We previously observed an increased incidence of pneumonia in persons living near goat and poultry farms, using animal presence around the home to define exposure. However, it is unclear to what extent individual mobility and time spent outdoors close to home contributes to this increased risk. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to investigate the role of mobility patterns and time spent outdoors in the vicinity of goat or poultry farms in relation to pneumonia risk. In a rural Dutch cohort, 941 members logged their mobility using GPS trackers for 7 days. Pneumonia was diagnosed in 83 subjects (participants reported that pneumonia had been diagnosed by a medical doctor, or recorded in EMR from general practitioners, 2011-2014). We used logistic regression to evaluate pneumonia-risk by presence of goat farms within 500 and 1000 m around the home and around GPS-tracks (only non-motorised mobility), also we evaluated whether more time spent outdoors increased pneumonia-risks. We observed a clearly increased risk of pneumonia among people living in close proximity to goat farms, ORs increased with closer distances of homes to farms (500 m: 6.2 (95% CI 2.2-16.5) 1000 m: 2.5 (1.4-4.3)) The risk increased for individuals who spent more time outdoors close to home, but only if homes were close to goat farms (within 500 m and often outdoors: 12.7 (3.6-45.4) less often: 2.0 (0.3-9.2), no goat farms and often outdoors: 1.0 (0.6-1.6)). For poultry we found no increased risks. Pneumonia-risks increased when people lived near goat farms, especially when they spent more time outdoors, mobility does not seem to add to these risks.

BackgroundThe home address is a common spatial proxy for exposure assessment in epidemiological studies but mobility may introduce exposure misclassification. Mobility can be assessed using self-reports or objectively measured using GPS logging but self-reports may not assess the same information as measured mobility. We aimed to assess mobility patterns of a rural population in the Netherlands using GPS measurements and self-reports and to compare GPS measured to self-reported data, and to evaluate correlates of differences in mobility patterns.MethodIn total 870 participants filled in a questionnaire regarding their transport modes and carried a GPS-logger for 7 consecutive days. Transport modes were assigned to GPS-tracks based on speed patterns. Correlates of measured mobility data were evaluated using multiple linear regression. We calculated walking, biking and motorised transport durations based on GPS and self-reported data and compared outcomes. We used Cohen’s kappa analyses to compare categorised self-reported and GPS measured data for time spent outdoors.ResultsSelf-reported time spent walking and biking was strongly overestimated when compared to GPS measurements. Participants estimated their time spent in motorised transport accurately. Several variables were associated with differences in mobility patterns, we found for instance that obese people (BMI > 30 kg/m2) spent less time in non-motorised transport (GMR 0.69–0.74) and people with COPD tended to travel longer distances from home in motorised transport (GMR 1.42–1.51).ConclusionsIf time spent walking outdoors and biking is relevant for the exposure to environmental factors, then relying on the home address as a proxy for exposure location may introduce misclassification. In addition, this misclassification is potentially differential, and specific groups of people will show stronger misclassification of exposure than others. Performing GPS measurements and identifying explanatory factors of mobility patterns may assist in regression calibration of self-reports in other studies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12942-017-0103-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.