Author
Listed:
- Abel B Minyoo
- Melissa Steinmetz
- Anna Czupryna
- Machunde Bigambo
- Imam Mzimbiri
- George Powell
- Paul Gwakisa
- Felix Lankester
Abstract
In this study we show that incentives (dog collars and owner wristbands) are effective at increasing owner participation in mass dog rabies vaccination clinics and we conclude that household questionnaire surveys and the mark-re-sight (transect survey) method for estimating post-vaccination coverage are accurate when all dogs, including puppies, are included. Incentives were distributed during central-point rabies vaccination clinics in northern Tanzania to quantify their effect on owner participation. In villages where incentives were handed out participation increased, with an average of 34 more dogs being vaccinated. Through economies of scale, this represents a reduction in the cost-per-dog of $0.47. This represents the price-threshold under which the cost of the incentive used must fall to be economically viable. Additionally, vaccination coverage levels were determined in ten villages through the gold-standard village-wide census technique, as well as through two cheaper and quicker methods (randomized household questionnaire and the transect survey). Cost data were also collected. Both non-gold standard methods were found to be accurate when puppies were included in the calculations, although the transect survey and the household questionnaire survey over- and under-estimated the coverage respectively. Given that additional demographic data can be collected through the household questionnaire survey, and that its estimate of coverage is more conservative, we recommend this method. Despite the use of incentives the average vaccination coverage was below the 70% threshold for eliminating rabies. We discuss the reasons and suggest solutions to improve coverage. Given recent international targets to eliminate rabies, this study provides valuable and timely data to help improve mass dog vaccination programs in Africa and elsewhere.Author Summary: It is estimated that 59,000 people die from canine-mediated rabies each year, over 99% in developing countries where rabies is endemic and nearly half of the victims are children. The annual global cost has been estimated at 8.6 billion dollars. Yet with highly effective vaccines and a single species of reservoir host (the domestic dog) rabies is entirely preventable through mass dog vaccination. These disease burden statistics, and the evidence that dog vaccination is highly effective at eliminating human rabies, have led the World Health Organisation (WHO), together with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), to unite in their joint commitment to the global elimination of canine rabies. To be successful in this, vaccination campaigns must routinely achieve the 70% coverage levels required for rabies elimination. We used a mass dog rabies vaccination campaign in northern Tanzania to assess the accuracy of methods used for estimating coverage. Additionally we assessed the impact that incentives had on vaccination turn out. Our data showed that, despite under- and over-estimating the coverage respectively, both household questionnaire and mark-re-sight surveys were accurate when compared to a gold-standard method for estimating coverage. Given this tendency to provide a conservative estimate, whilst also providing opportunities for valuable demographic data to be collected, we recommend the household questionnaire survey method. Our data also indicated that the provision of incentives did significantly increase the number of dogs brought for vaccination.
Suggested Citation
Abel B Minyoo & Melissa Steinmetz & Anna Czupryna & Machunde Bigambo & Imam Mzimbiri & George Powell & Paul Gwakisa & Felix Lankester, 2015.
"Incentives Increase Participation in Mass Dog Rabies Vaccination Clinics and Methods of Coverage Estimation Are Assessed to Be Accurate,"
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pntd00:0004221
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004221
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0004221. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.