Are Animal Farmers Prepared for the Next Influenza Outbreak?

1. Are Animal Farmers Prepared for the Next Influenza Outbreak? Nnaemeka U. Odoa, Peter C. Raynora, Amanda Beaudoinb, Jeffrey B. Benderb aUniversity of Minnesota, School of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health Sciences bUniversity of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Veterinary Population Medicine BACKGROUND RESULTS Hand-washing was the most common practice observed among all participants with 42% “always” and 35% “sometimes” washing their hands after contact with the animals. This practice was least common among Minnesota swine workers, even when compared with the frequency of hand-washing among Thai poultry farmers. Mask use during animal farming activities (“always” or “sometimes”) was least commonly practiced, ranging from 1% in Thailand to 26% among backyard poultry farmers in Minnesota. Minnesota poultry and swine farmers had similar frequencies of mask use (26% vs. 25.6%) and glove use (51.3% vs. 49%). All other comparisons differed significantly across the four populations (p-values <0.05). Animal farm workers may be exposed to animals infected with influenza viruses and are advised to observe personal hygiene practices. This study highlights the frequency of these personal hygiene practices in four populations of poultry and swine farmers in the Midwest United States and Thailand. METHODS Data on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) – specifically gloves, footwear, and masks – and the practice of hand-washing were obtained from four different cross-sectional studies of animal farmers using either telephone or directly-administered surveys. There were 1,113 completed questionnaires in total from workers in direct contact with animals, flock owners, or veterinarians tending to the farms. Frequencies of personal hygiene practices were assessed by different studies and by overall use of any PPE. The frequencies were compared using chi-square analyses or Fisher’s exact tests where applicable, and significant differences were determined using p-values < 0.05. RESULTS Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) (Source: www.pesticides.montana.edu ) CONCLUSIONS PPE use in animal farming differed by study location and is likely related to prevalent norms in the respective regions. Despite the variation in information gathering across the studies (workers vs. owners, veterinarians), and the different populations surveyed, these results provide some insight into the practices of personal protection in these regions. Overall, the use of PPE did not seem to be influenced by the type of animal farming being done. These findings will be useful in formulating strategies to improve personal hygiene practices in animal farming and improve emergency preparedness in public health prevention and control of influenza outbreaks. Acknowledgment: This work was conducted as part of the University of Minnesota International Cooperative Zoonotic Influenza Research Center, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under Cooperative Agreement Number U19C1000407.