↓ Skip to main content

Increasing the Local Relevance of Epidemiological Research: Situated Knowledge of Cattle Disease Among Basongora Pastoralists in Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Increasing the Local Relevance of Epidemiological Research: Situated Knowledge of Cattle Disease Among Basongora Pastoralists in Uganda
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2018.00119
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erika Chenais, Klara Fischer

Abstract

Cattle disease can have severe negative impacts on the livelihoods of the poor, but still, animal disease management and outreach often remain suboptimal in low-income settings. In a study on Basongora pastoralists in Uganda, we examined local priorities, perceptions and practices regarding cattle disease, in order to improve outreach and disease control advisory work in such contexts. We also investigated how participatory epidemiology can be better equipped for gathering situated knowledge. Empirical material obtained in focus group discussions, interviews, participatory mapping, and wealth-ranking was used to perform a thematic, bottom-up analysis. The concepts of situated knowledge and embodied objectivity and insights from participatory research and interdisciplinary dialogue were applied to better embrace local perspectives. Cowdriosis, trypanosomosis, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia, East Coast fever and anthrax were high-priority diseases for participants. Lack of control over the animal health situation and money invested in treatments that did not guarantee recovery were of general importance for disease prioritization. Participants' descriptions of diseases sometimes diverged from textbook definitions. Co-infections, chronic and recurring infections and lack of access to formal knowledge were identified as important factors for differences between formal and situated knowledge. Paying attention to situated knowledge and particular context-specific issues such as proximity to a national park proved to be of special relevance for local understanding and experiences with disease. Another factor was the local importance ascribed to number of cattle, rather than production levels. These factors need to be taken into consideration when formulating disease control advice, as does the complex disease landscape. The results reveal the importance of moving research and advice beyond curing "knowledge-gaps" and creating different ways of understanding disease so that situated knowledge can be considered, and disease control improved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 19%
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Lecturer 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 21 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 18 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 18%
Environmental Science 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 24 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2018.
All research outputs
#13,264,943
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#1,710
of 6,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,500
of 329,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#45
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,384 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,367 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.