AJTMH ASTMH Job Mart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 47(3), 1992, pp. 317-327
Copyright © 1992 by The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fishbein, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by Baer, G. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fishbein, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by Baer, G. M.

Prevention of Canine Rabies in Rural Mexico: an Epidemiologic Study of Vaccination Campaigns

Daniel B. Fishbein, Maria G. Frontini, James G. Dobbins, Estrella Flores Collins, Guadalupe Quiroz Huerta, Jose De Jesus Gamez Rodriguez, Brian Woo-Ming, Juan Garza Ramos, Albino J. Belotto, Juan Manuel Balderas Torres, Kristine M. Yenne, Samuel B. Linhart AND George M. Baer
Viral and Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia; Jurisdiccion Sanitaria Atlixco and Oficina de Control de Zoonosis, Servicios Coordinados de Salud en el Edo. de Puebla, Puebla, Puebla, Mexico; Asesor en Salud Publica Veterinaria, Organizacion Panamericana de la Salud, Organizacion Mundial de la Saludi Productora Nacional de Biologics Veterinarios, Mexico; Denver Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Denver, Colorado

We compared three vaccination strategies in three rural communities in Mexico to determine the factors associated with the success of vaccination programs in areas where canine rabies is poorly controlled. In town A, intensive publicity and community participation were used; owners were instructed to bring their dogs to temporary centralized clinics for vaccination. In town B, only brief precampaign publicity was used, followed by vaccination at a centralized site. Minimal publicity was also used in town C, but the vaccination campaign was conducted house to house. A total of 5,426 residents and 1,597 dogs were counted in the three towns (mean human:dog ratio 3.4:1). In Town A, 70.1% (472 of 673) of the dogs were vaccinated; the campaign required 40 person-minutes per dog. Significantly greater proportions were vaccinated in town B (262 of 318 [82.4%]; P < 0.001) and town C (483 of 561 [86.1%]; P < 0.00001); each of these latter campaigns required 10 person-minutes per dog. The following factors were positively associated (by multivariate analyses) with vaccination of individual dogs: non-intensive publicity, house-to-house vaccination, dogs owned by a single member of the household, and dogs acquired > 15 days after birth. Intensive publicity did not increase the overall success of the vaccination program; the efficiency of centralized versus and house-to-house vaccination was comparable.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1992 by the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.