目的 了解禽流感疫区活禽捕杀人员禽流感知识、态度、行为(KAP)以及禽流感防控工作中存在的问题,为进一步宣传教育和行为干预作准备.方法 采用整群抽样方法,由经过培训的调查员对64名活禽捕杀人员进行入户调查.调查表经过查阅文献、预调查后确定.其中,相关知识以得分情况反映,并通过单因素分析其影响因素.结果 活禽捕杀人员以当地农民为主,占70.3%,15.6%的家禽养殖者也参与了本次捕杀活动,此外尚有12.5%的捕杀人员为外地到此打工者.活禽捕杀人员总体上对禽流感知识缺乏了解,平均得分为10.2分,最低4.6分,最高13.0分.经单因素分析,文化程度为禽流感相关知识的影响因素(P=0.016),文化程度越高,知识掌握情况越好;年龄、性别、月收入及居住时间均与禽流感相关知识无关.对禽流感传播途径回答正确的仅有7人,占10.9%.25.0%的人在捕杀过程中未做好个人防护,尤其是隔离衣、口罩、护目镜的使用情况较差.日常生活中接触禽肉后,无正确洗手习惯;64.1%的捕杀人员生病后,首选自己买药、自行治疗,且就医行为与文化程度无关[OR=0.50,95%CI(0.25,1.01)].50.0%的捕杀人员没有考虑过禽流感与自己的关系,31.3%的捕杀人员认为禽流感与自己无关,其中家禽养殖者中80.0%认为禽流感与己无关.捕杀人员对于禽流感与自己的关系与禽流感相关知识掌握情况无关(x2=0.36,P=0.67).结论 文化程度是禽流感相关知识的影响因素,但对捕杀人员对禽流感的态度、行为未产生效用.
Objective The study was conducted to uncover the knowledge, attitude and practice regarding avian influenza (AI) that characterized the poultry slaughterers in the affected areas and current problems in AI control and prevention, providing evidence for the development of strategies and measures on AI-related health education and behavioral intervention. Methods Household surveys of 64 poultry slaughterers were conducted based on cluster sampling by trained investigators. Various literatures were referred to and a pilot test performed for the development of the questionnaire, in which the knowledge was quantified and scored with the influencing factors analyzed by the one-way ANOVA test. Results The poultry slaughters comprised mostly local farmers (70.3%), followed by poultry breeders (15.6%), and some floating workers (12.5%) in these areas. Surveys showed a general knowledge deficit on AI among these people; the average score was 10.2, the lowest 4.6 and the highest 13.0. Results of the one-way ANOVA test revealed that their education background was an influencing factor (P=0.016), as people with higher education levels often showed better knowledge of AI. In contrast, age, sex, monthly income and duration of dwelling were not related to the knowledge. Only seven subjects (10.9%) correctly answered the questions on the route of transmission of AI. Personal protective equipments, such as isolation gowns, face masks and goggles, were seldom adopted by 25.0% slaughterers in their routine work. They did not form such habitual behaviors as washing hands after contact with avian flesh. A total of 64.1% slaughterers chose to self-treat with drugs when sick, and this medical behavior was irrelevant to their education background (OR=0.50, 95%CI(0.25,1.01). A total of 50.0% slaughterers had no idea of the relationship between AI and themselves; 31.3% believed that AI was not related to their daily life, and 80.0% poultry breeders also believed so. Conclusion Education background was the influencing factor of AI-related knowledge. However, the poultry slaughterers' attitude to and practice regarding AI was not.