Are Village Animal Health Workers Able to Assist in Strengthening Transboundary Animal Disease Control in Cambodia?

Abstract

A cross-sectional survey of 445 Village Animal Health Workers (VAHWs) from 19 provinces in Cambodia was undertaken. The aim was to establish their levels of training, farm visit frequency, reasons for visits and disease reporting practices, enabling the strengths and weaknesses of the VAHW system in Cambodia to be determined, in providing both a fee-based smallholder livestock clinical service and a government partnership in transboundary animal disease (TAD) surveillance and control. The study used 'guided group interviews' and identified that VAHWs had good contact with farmers with 61.5% making more than one farm visit daily. However, incomes from services remained low, with 45% VAHWs obtaining between 20 and 40% of their household income from VAHW activities. VAHWs recorded relatively high rates of disease reporting, with 72% claiming they report diseases immediately and 74% undertaking monthly reporting to veterinary authorities. Logistic regression analysis revealed VAHW contact frequency with district and/or provincial officers was associated with more VAHW farm visits, and frequency of VAHW visits to smallholder farms was positively associated with average monthly expenditure on animal medication and equipment. This suggests that increased veterinary extension to VAHWs and access to veterinary equipment, vaccines and drugs may further increase VAHW-farmer engagement. VAHWs provide an accessible, market-based, animal health 'treatment and reporting' service linked to livestock smallholders across Cambodia. However, for improved TAD prevention and more efficient control of outbreaks, research that assesses provision of an animal health 'preventive-based' business model is urgently needed to reduce both the costs to farmers and the risks to the economy due to foot-and-mouth disease and other TADs in Cambodia.

Improving Village Animal Health Worker participation in national disease surveillance systems: A case study from Cambodia

“…The current study purposively selected the study locations and used a probability sampling method to select VAHWs as described, whereas in the 2008 study the districts were randomly selected whilste the VAHWs were purposively selected. Both techniques have the possibility of introducing selection bias through increased contact with the VAHWs; in 2008 with VAHWs better known to government staff, and in this study with potential involvement and awareness from the VBLDRM project (Stratton et al, ). Although the sample size of this study is considerably smaller than that used previously, it can provide a regional update on the current communication behaviours.…”

“…Low levels of disease reporting may be attributed to six themes that have been identified as overarching issues: (a) lack of knowledge of (early) clinical signs; (b) guilt, shame, and prejudice; (c) negative opinions of control measures; (d) dissatisfaction with post‐reporting procedures; (e) lack of trust in government bodies; and (e) uncertainty and lack of transparency of reporting procedures (Elbers, Gorgievski‐Duijvesteijn, van der Velden, Loeffen, & Zarafshani, ; Elbers, Gorgievski‐Duijvesteijn, Zarafshani, & Koch, ). This cross‐sectional study examined disease reporting by VAHWs in Cambodia, identifying much lower contact between VAHW and district animal health authorities than previously recorded (Stratton et al, ). However, this may reflect spatial, temporal and methodological differences between the two studies.…”

“…Due to its significance at the univariable analysis, ‘Study location’ was forced into the multivariable model to adjust for potential clustering and confounding. In the 2008 study (Stratton et al, ), district and provincial differences were not specifically examined as the findings suggested that VAHW behaviours were similar across the country. However, as the study locations in the current study are within close proximity to Phnom Penh, caution is advised when extrapolating these findings to more remote provinces.…”

“…Whilst a universally accepted definition of smallholder farmers does not exist, they are generally considered to own a small plot of land (<2 ha) and have traditionally practised subsistence‐based farming (DAFF, ; FAO, ). These small farms are responsible for feeding a substantial proportion of the global population, and in these communities, livestock are a major asset and play a key role in poverty alleviation and household food security (Lowder, Skoet, & Raney, ; Rapsomanikis, ; Stratton et al, ). However, globally, many smallholder farming communities have inadequate access to official veterinary services, due to isolation, financial restrictions, civil unrest and limited capabilities of some national veterinary services (Allport, Mosha, Bahari, Swai, & Catley, ; Bugeza et al, ; Catley et al, ).…”

“…The study aimed to identify the factors associated with VAHWs contacting their district animal health authorities and to offer recommendations on improving regular contact. The work builds on historical data from 2008 (Stratton et al, ), aimed at providing directions for future activities that could improve the current disease reporting system in Cambodia. The study was conducted as a part of the research project ‘Village‐based biosecurity for livestock disease risk management in Cambodia’ (VBLDRM), a collaboration between The University of Sydney and Cambodian General Directorate of Animal Health and Production (GDAHP), funded by Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR).…”