Avian Influenza Risk Perception among Poultry Workers, Nigeria

To the Editor: In Nigeria and other African countries, outbreaks caused by the Asian strain of highly patho-genic avian infl uenza virus (HPAI) subtype H5N1 have occurred in poultry. These countries do not have the capacity to effectively manage, eliminate , and control animal diseases, and humans generally live in close contact with poultry (1,2). Before these outbreaks (2006) in other countries, effective risk communication had reduced chances of human infection (3,4), and the effect of news media reports in reducing infection also had been reported (5). However, risk evaluation, perception , or communication has not been reported from Africa, where poverty (6), inadequate primary healthcare facilities (7,8), and nonchalant attitudes to animal diseases predominate. In this study, we report the perception of poultry workers in Nigeria to avian infl uenza (AI). To determine perception of AI, from November 2006 through January 2007, we surveyed a random sample of 200 poultry workers in 8 of the Ni-gerian HPAI virus (H5N1)–affected states: Kaduna and Kano (north); Plateau, Bauchi, Nasarawa, and Abuja (central); and Ogun and Lagos (south). We used pretested and previously evaluated structured interviews. Telephone interviews were used to confi rm data collected from ≈15% of respondents, and data were evaluated by using descriptive statistics. All responses were evaluated according to published guidelines of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization , OIE/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Network on Avian Infl uenza, and Food and Drug Administration of the United Nations, taken from the organizations' websites. One hundred thirty-fi ve (68%) poultry farmer workers from 36 infected and 39 uninfected fl ocks responded to the interview. Farms evaluated had fl ocks of a few hundred (200–300) to >70,000 chickens. Eighty-nine percent of respondents were concerned about AI; 57% knew that AI has food safety implications. Eighteen percent were willing to eat chicken that had died or gotten sick from infection; 21% would eat chicken and eggs from infected farms. These surveyed workers stated that thorough cooking, frying, cleaning , and traditional cooking methods were suffi cient to kill the HPAI virus. 23% were not aware of risk associated with processing of HPAI-infected meat. Although 61% reported knowing some risk factors for AI (e.g., close association with infected birds, home slaughtering, unprotected personnel, eating and processing of infected carcasses), only 56% correctly described some risk factors. Sixty …