A cluster-randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of different knowledge-transfer interventions for rural working equid users in Ethiopia

Abstract

There have been few studies evaluating the efficacy of knowledge-transfer methods for livestock owners in developing countries, and to the authors’ knowledge no published work is available that evaluates the effect of knowledge-transfer interventions on the education of working equid users. A cluster-randomised controlled trial (c-RCT) was used to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of three knowledge-transfer interventions on knowledge-change about equid health amongst rural Ethiopian working equid users. Groups were exposed to either; an audio programme, a village meeting or a diagrammatic handout, all of which addressed identical learning objectives, and were compared to a control group which received no intervention. Thirty-two villages were randomly selected and interventions randomly assigned. All participants in a village received the same intervention. Knowledge levels were assessed by questionnaire administration. Data analysis included comparison of baseline data between intervention groups followed by multilevel linear regression models (allowing for clustering of individuals within village) to evaluate the change in knowledge between the different knowledge-transfer interventions.A total of 516 randomly selected participants completed the pre-intervention questionnaire, 504 of whom undertook the post-dissemination questionnaire, a follow up response rate of 98%. All interventions significantly improved the overall ‘change in knowledge’ score on the questionnaire compared to the control, with the diagrammatic handout (coefficient (coef) 9.5, S.E. = 0.6) and the village meeting (coef 9.7, S.E. = 0.6) having a significantly greater impact than the audio programme (coef 4.8, S.E. = 0.6). Covariates that were different at baseline, and which were also significant in the final model, were age and pre-intervention score. Although they had a minimal effect on the intervention coefficients there was a significant interaction between age and intervention. This study should aid the design of education materials for adult learning for working equid users and other groups in developing countries.

Owner reported diseases of working equids in central Ethiopia

“…It has also highlighted differences in what owners perceive as common and important diseases that affect their equids and what service providers most commonly treat. The results presented here have been used to inform the design and content of educational interventions that aimed to increase the knowledge of working equid-owners about the health and welfare of their animals [45], identify areas requiring further research [11] and highlight diseases that owners perceive as important requiring preventive interventions. Whilst it should be recognising that infectious diseases are only one of several key welfare challenges faced by working equids, developing improved diagnostics (for EZL) and improved disease surveillance (for different AHS serotypes) would aid in the prevention and control of these diseases.…”

Improving animal health for poverty alleviation and sustainable livelihoods

“…It is estimated that the total world equine population is around 112 million (approximately 58.5 million horses, 43 million donkeys and 10.5 million mules), although this is likely to be an underestimate (FAO 2013). These equids perform numerous vital tasks, including the transportation of goods, people and construction materials, as well as being used in agricultural and tourism activities (Garuma and others 2007, Pritchard 2010, Stringer and others 2011). …”

Cross‐sectional survey of owner knowledge and husbandry practices, tack and health issues affecting working horses in Lesotho

“…However, few studies report objectively on the benefit derived from their interventions (Curran et al . 2005; Stringer et al . 2011), in particular where baseline data, collected prior to intervention, are available.…”

“…A number of charities operate in developing countries with the aim of improving the health and welfare of working equines. However, few studies report objectively on the benefit derived from their interventions Stringer et al 2011), in particular where baseline data, collected prior to intervention, are available.…”