A scoping review of live wildlife trade in markets worldwide.

Wet markets sell fresh food and are a global phenomenon. They are important for food security in many regions worldwide but have come under scrutiny due to their potential role in the emergence of infectious diseases. The sale of live wildlife has been highlighted as a particular risk, and the World Health Organisation has called for the banning of live, wild-caught mammalian species in markets unless risk assessment and effective regulations are in place. Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a global scoping review of peer-reviewed information about the sale of live, terrestrial wildlife in markets that are likely to sell fresh food, and collated data about the characteristics of such markets, activities involving live wildlife, the species sold, their purpose, and animal, human, and environmental health risks that were identified. Of the 56 peer-reviewed records within scope, only 25% (n = 14) focussed on disease risks; the rest focused on the impact of wildlife sale on conservation. Although there were some global patterns (for example, the types of markets and purpose of sale of wildlife), there was wide diversity and huge epistemic uncertainty in all aspects associated with live, terrestrial wildlife sale in markets such that the feasibility of accurate assessment of the risk of emerging infectious disease associated with live wildlife trade in markets is currently limited. Given the value of both wet markets and wildlife trade and the need to support food affordability and accessibility, conservation, public health, and the social and economic aspects of livelihoods of often vulnerable people, there are major information gaps that need to be addressed to develop evidence-based policy in this environment. This review identifies these gaps and provides a foundation from which information for risk assessments can be collected.

The importance of understanding end user acceptability of new technology to support animal health management.

This pilot study investigates the acceptability of a mobile application (app) developed to assist livestock producers make better animal health decisions with the support of a local veterinarian. With the increase in new technologies available for producers, acceptability evaluation is important to ensure that technology is designed considering end users' needs. An acceptability qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews, was designed including a purposive selection of sheep producers and livestock veterinarians. Eleven producers and six veterinarians participated in the study. Results suggest that producers would use such a tool to contact private veterinarians in non-emergency situations to obtain animal health advice. From veterinarians' perspective, while features of the app, such as messaging and notifications, were considered useful, concerns were raised about its capacity to enhance business opportunities and potential privacy implications. This study highlights the importance of engaging with end users in the early stages of the design and the introduction of new technology to maximise potential for adoption.

"Why won't they just vaccinate?" Horse owner risk perception and uptake of the Hendra virus vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Hendra virus is a paramyxovirus that causes periodic serious disease and fatalities in horses and humans in Australia first identified in 1994. Pteropid bats (commonly known as flying-foxes) are the natural host of the virus, and the putative route of infection in horses is by ingestion or inhalation of material contaminated by flying-fox urine or other bodily fluids. Humans become infected after close contact with infected horses. Horse owners in Australia are encouraged to vaccinate their horses against Hendra virus to reduce the risk of Hendra virus infection, and to prevent potential transmission to humans. After the vaccine was released in 2012, uptake by horse owners was slow, with some estimated 11-17% of horses in Australia vaccinated. This study was commissioned to examine barriers to vaccine uptake and potential drivers to future adoption of vaccination by horse owners. METHODS: This study examined qualitative comments from respondents to an on-line survey, reporting reasons for not vaccinating their horses. The study also investigated scenarios in which respondents felt they might consider vaccinating their horses. RESULTS: Self-reported barriers to uptake of the Hendra virus vaccine by horse owners (N = 150) included concerns about vaccine safety, cost, and effectiveness. Reduction in vaccination costs and perception of immediacy of Hendra virus risk were reported as being likely to change future behaviour. However, the data also indicated that horse owners generally would not reconsider vaccinating their horses if advised by their veterinarian. CONCLUSION: While changes to vaccine costs and the availability data supporting vaccine safety and efficacy may encourage more horse owners to vaccinate, this study highlights the importance of protecting the relationship between veterinarians and horse owners within the risk management strategies around Hendra virus. Interactions and trust between veterinarians and animal owners has important implications for management of and communication around Hendra virus and other zoonotic disease outbreaks.

Risk Mitigation of Emerging Zoonoses: Hendra Virus and Non-Vaccinating Horse Owners.

Hendra virus was identified in horses and humans in 1994, in Queensland, Australia. Flying foxes are the natural host. Horses are thought to acquire infection by direct or indirect contact with infected flying fox urine. Humans are infected from close contact with infected horses. To reduce risk of infection in horses and humans, Australian horse owners are encouraged to vaccinate horses against the virus and adopt property risk mitigation practices that focus on reducing flying fox horse contact and contamination of horses' environment with flying fox bodily fluids. This study investigates uptake of four Hendra virus risk mitigation practices in a sample of non- and partially vaccinating horse owners living close to previous Hendra virus cases. Protection motivation theory was used to develop a conceptual model to investigate risk perception and coping factors associated with uptake of risk mitigation practices. An online survey was administered via Facebook pages of veterinary clinics close to previous Hendra virus cases. Factors associated with uptake of risk mitigation practices were investigated using univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression. Belief that a risk mitigation practice would be effective in reducing Hendra virus risk was significantly associated with the uptake of that practice. Issues around the practicality of implementing risk mitigation practices were found to be the greatest barrier to uptake. Factors that relate to risk immediacy, such as nearby infection, were identified as more likely to trigger uptake of risk mitigation practices. The role of veterinarians in supporting Hendra risk mitigation was identified as more influential than that of respected others or friends. Findings from this study are being used to assist stakeholders in Australia responsible for promotion of risk mitigation practice in identifying additional pathways and reliable influencing factors that could be utilized for engaging and communicating with horse owners to promote Hendra virus risk mitigation behaviour.