Application of Mixed Methods to Identify Small Ruminant Disease Priorities in Ethiopia

Abstract

Animal health interventions tend to focus on transboundary or zoonotic animal diseases and little attention is given to diseases that mainly affect livestock production and productivity which are of concern for smallholder farmers. To understand disease priorities of men and women livestock keepers and how these impact households, this study used participatory methods to elucidate priorities, reasons for prioritization, knowledge on small ruminant diseases and their transmission pathways. The study was conducted in 23 sites distributed across 14 districts in four regional states of Ethiopia. Ninety-two focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted with men or women only groups. Various tools, such as semi-structured interviews, simple scoring and proportional piling were used to facilitate the process. A follow-up household survey involving 432 households/interviewees collected in-depth data on key small ruminant diseases. Each focus group identified and scored their top five diseases. During analysis, the diseases were grouped in to seven major categories based on local names and clinical signs reported. Highest scores in proportional piling (out of 100 counters) were obtained for respiratory diseases and gastrointestinal parasites in highland areas (mixed crop-livestock systems) with strong agreement among respondent groups using Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W) (W = 0.395, p < 0.01); whereas in lowland areas (pastoral and agro-pastoral systems), the priorities were respiratory and neurological diseases, also with very strong agreement (W = 0.995, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between men and women in prioritizing disease constraints. The reasons for prioritization were also used to define categories of impact of disease. The household survey confirmed disease priorities and highlighted the role of mortality for respiratory diseases. Despite differences in household roles, both men and women unvaryingly described the clinical signs in live animals the same way and reported similar observations of disease in carcasses of slaughtered animals. Overall, both men and women farmers had low awareness of zoonotic diseases. In conclusion, the priorities of national disease control programs do not fully match priorities of farmers. Such participatory tools should therefore, play a pivotal role when designing sustainable livestock health interventions.

Animal Health Service Delivery in Crop-Livestock and Pastoral Systems in Ethiopia

“…However, the contribution of this resource to the national economy is not commensurate to the huge national potential. This mismatch is mostly caused by the widespread prevalence of many infectious and parasitic diseases (2)(3)(4) which drastically reduce the production and productivity of livestock through morbidity, mortality and market restrictions (5,6).…”

Combining viral genetic and animal mobility network data to unravel peste des petits ruminants transmission dynamics in West Africa

“…Data on PPR virus circulation, including genetic data, is limited in most African countries, notably due to budget constraints, confounding symptoms with other diseases (Bluetongue, ORF disease, Contagious caprine pleuropneumonia etc. ), and the limited reporting of active disease by communities endemically burdened by multiple small ruminant diseases [ 19 , 20 ]. For the present study, potential PPR infections were investigated by Senegal National Veterinary Services between 2010 and 2014 to gather one of the most complete PPRV genetic datasets ever obtained from one country, which was complemented with genetic data from neighbouring countries.…”

Clapping with Two Hands: Transforming Gender Relations and Zoonotic Disease Risks through Community Conversations in Rural Ethiopia

“…The analysis followed an exploratory sequential mixed-methods approach, applying both quantitative and qualitative methods equally to triangulate data on gender dynamics in livestock management, knowledge of livestock diseases and their transmission pathways, and the impact of livestock diseases on household members (see Alemu et al 2019 for details). Our results revealed differences and inequalities in the gender division of labor, time allocation, access to and control over resources and a general lack of knowledge on zoonotic diseases among women and men livestock keepers (Alemu et al 2019;Kinati et al 2018;Wieland et al 2016).…”

“…Differences and inequalities in the division of labor in livestock management are common with women responsible for labor-intensive activities such as feeding, watering, and cleaning barns while men are responsible for incomegenerating and decision-making activities (Kinati et al 2018). The gender-based differences in roles and power relations disproportionately expose household members to the risk of zoonotic diseases (Alemu et al 2019). Although women are heavily involved in livestock production, their role is culturally undervalued by men, affecting their ability to access and control resources and benefits from their labor.…”