Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Dog Owners Regarding Rabies and Dog Bites in Bicol Region

Abstract

This study was conducted in selected provinces of Bicol Region from April 2015 to May 2015 to describe the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of dog owners regarding rabies and dog bites. A purposive sampling was used in selecting the respondents of the study. Frequencies were tabulated for all variables. Of the 1,200 respondents, 2,193 dogs were recorded making a 2:1 ratio of dogs to householders in this particular study. Among these dogs 58% were vaccinated against rabies. The majority of the ones taking care of the dogs were female (57.3%) but the primary owner (62.9%) was the head of the family. Only 34.7% of the respondents knew that it is their duty to get their pets vaccinated against rabies. Around one-fourth (20.7%) admitted that someone in their household had been bitten by a dog but most respondents (62.5%) did nothing to the dog. The majority (57.7%) of the bite victims were youths (1-14 years old) and almost all (82.7%) of the wound bites were washed with soap and water. Television (44.9%) was the primary source of knowledge about rabies. The majority of participants (67.3%) said that humans are the main end-hosts that can be infected with rabies. Salivation or drooling (42.7%) and craziness (34.2%) were the main signs cited as behaviour of rabid dogs while craziness (40.2%) and hydrophobia or fear of water (25.4%) were cited for rabid humans. Most (33.9%) do not know the source of rabies but the majority (61.8%) believe that vaccination is the main preventive measure against rabies. The majority of participants (63%) reported that the local ordinances regarding rabies in their locality is about the Local Anti-Rabies Act and almost all (93.2%) admitted that vaccination is the most common anti-rabies program of the government.

Household survey on owned dog population and rabies knowledge in selected municipalities in Bulacan, Philippines: A cross-sectional study

“…Table 4 summarizes other studies in the Philippines in which the owned dog population and the total dog population were estimated in various areas of the country. In some studies, a purposive sampling methodology was adopted in which dog-or pet-owning households were surveyed [13,15], while in others, a sampling technique that combined random and systematic methods was undertaken [14,16]. This combined random and systematic method is also commonly described in other studies conducted in Africa [28][29][30].…”

“…This study, however, was quite limited, with only 64 dogowning households surveyed in Dumaguete [13]. In 2015, Bernales and Basitan conducted a study that included 1200 dog-owning households in the Bicol region and reported a dog: human ratio of 2:1 [15]. Although both studies provide insight into the dog population, they present an inflated estimate because a purposive sampling method was used to select the dogowning households in both.…”

“…If the local dog population data are unavailable, they are estimated using the 1:10 dog to human ratio, recommended by the national guidelines [6]. Several previous studies attempted to ascertain the dog: human ratio in the Philippines and showed gaps between their survey results and estimation using the 1:10 ratio [13][14][15][16][17]. Thus, underestimating the dog population would lead to insufficient vaccine coverage.…”

“…Another study revealed that lack of awareness and insufficient funds are the primary reasons for not visiting the ABTC [7]. Despite the identified knowledge gaps, there is a consensus among the rabies KAP studies conducted in the Philippines that the population has a relatively good knowledge about rabies and responsible pet ownership [15,19,20].…”

“…Often communities have limited household registration and have dense arrangement of households. The use of cluster, purposive, and systematic random sampling to select survey households might lead to some underrepresented households and introduce bias [13][14][15][16][17]21]. This study is unique among its peers as we conducted complete mapping of the households in the target communities and systematically selected households for survey.…”