ArticleOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2026
Human-animal contact and zoonotic exposure from wild and domestic animals: A cross-sectional study in wildlife-rich areas of Bolivia, Chile, and Guatemala.
Article in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Human-animal contact (HAC) is a key driver of zoonotic disease emergence and transmission, yet population-based data from Latin America remain limited. The objective of this study was to characterize HAC patterns and estimate zoonotic exposure in wildlife-rich settings across Bolivia, Chile, and Guatemala. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire was administered to 2389 participants in rural, urban, and protected areas to assess direct, indirect, and foodborne contact with domestic and wild animals. Patterns of HAC were visualized using heatmaps, and a proxy-based exposure index was developed based on literature-derived weightings for rabies, brucellosis, and bovine tuberculosis. Associations with sociodemographic and knowledge-related factors were analyzed using multivariable regression models. Results: Overall, 92% of participants reported domestic animal contact-most frequently with dogs, cats, poultry, and swine-while 32% reported wild animal contact, predominantly with wild birds, rodents, and bats. 99% of individuals with wildlife contact also reported contact with domestic animals. Direct interactions, including ownership, handling, and slaughtering, were most common, whereas indirect and foodborne contacts were less frequent. Adolescents and participants with lower income and education showed higher exposure scores. However, in adjusted models, country and area of residence were the most consistent determinants of exposure. Rural residence was associated with greater exposure to brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis, and prior zoonosis training with lower exposure to rabies. Conclusion: The study highlights the co-occurrence of wildlife and domestic human-animal contacts. Further research integrating HAC, pathogen surveillance, and host vulnerability with a One Health approach is critical for identifying high-risk human-animal-environment interfaces.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.