Survey of rabies vaccination status of Queensland veterinarians and veterinary students

Communicating the risks of handling bats: analysing approaches used by Australian stakeholders in the context of Australian bat lyssavirus

Australian bat lyssavirus (ABLV) is a member of the Lyssavirus genus of the Rhabdoviridae family and is found in Australian bat species. It is of public health concern because of the rabies-like syndrome it causes in humans, resulting in government health and wildlife agencies using varied communication approaches to inform targeted audiences about zoonotic risks associated with handling bats. Despite these warnings, the number of reports of human-bat interactions remains high. This paper details a survey conducted to analyse the approaches utilised by a range of stakeholders to educate and communicate warnings to their target audiences. The survey focused on identifying the target audiences, communication methods used, along with the message frequency, content, and perceived effectiveness. Analysis of the top three messages delivered by stakeholders revealed that over half were information-focused messages and over a third, instruction-focused. Stakeholders identified the need to balance messaging about bat handling risks with information regarding the vulnerable status of bats and their environmental significance. Whilst the most common and (perceived) effective method of communication was one-on-one discussions, it was also identified to be ineffective for targeting mass audiences leading stakeholders to recognise the need to adapt to more efficient means of communication. The outcomes of this study may be useful to improve risk communication strategies regarding ABLV in Australia.

What can we learn from over a decade of testing bats in New South Wales to exclude infection with Australian bat lyssaviruses?

Australian Bat lyssaviruses (ABLV) are known to be endemic in bats in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. These viruses pose a public health risk because they cause a fatal disease in humans that is indistinguishable from classical rabies infection. All potentially infectious contact between bats and humans, or between bats and domestic animals, should be investigated to assess the risk of virus transmission by submitting the bat for testing to exclude ABLV infection. The aim of this study was to establish the prevalence of ABLV infection in bats submitted for testing in NSW and to document any trends or changes in submission and bat details. We examined all submissions of samples for ABLV testing received by the NSW Department of Primary Industries Virology Laboratory for the 13-year period between 1 May 2008 and 30 April 2021. Fifty-four (4.9%) ABLV-infected bats were detected, with some clustering of positive results. This is greater than the prevalence estimated from wild-caught bats. All bats should be considered a potential source of ABLV. In particular, flying-foxes with rabies-like clinical signs, and with known or possible human interaction, pose the highest public health risk because they are more likely to return a positive result for ABLV infection. This review of ABLV cases in NSW will help veterinarians to recognise the clinical presentations of ABLV infection in bats and emphasises the importance of adequate rabies vaccination for veterinarians.

Q fever vaccination: Australian animal science and veterinary students' One Health perspectives on Q fever prevention

Unvaccinated animal science and veterinary students are at risk of Q fever, a vaccine-preventable zoonotic disease transmitted from animals to humans. We investigated students' perspectives on Q fever prevention using a One Health approach combining animal, human and environmental health. Animal science and veterinary students enrolled at the University of Adelaide in 2019 were invited to participate in an online survey to explore their perceptions about Q fever and prevention strategies. We undertook descriptive analysis and logistic regression. Overall, 46% of students reported little to no knowledge of Q fever. Over three-quarters of students reported transmission of Q fever via aerosol inhalation and animal culling, whilst other modes including sexual transmission between humans (7%) was poorly identified. The majority of students reported exposure to cattle, sheep and goats. Of those who reported vaccination status, 5% veterinary and 61% animal science students were unvaccinated for Q fever. Challenges concerning vaccination included cost, time and access to healthcare with strategies aimed at promoting awareness, improving healthcare access and subsidized and mass vaccination. Knowledge of Q fever among respondents, particularly about disease transmission was suboptimal. As a key principle to One Health approach, adherence to biosecurity guidelines during contact with animals could potentially reduce zoonoses including Q fever transmission. Improving access to Q fever vaccine for unvaccinated students is a priority. Findings underscore that university policy for Q fever vaccination needs to consider subsidized vaccination for both animal science and veterinary students.

Response to Wolf et al.: Furthering Debate over the Suitability of Trap-Neuter-Return for Stray Cat Management

To continue dialogue over proposed Australian trials of Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR), we applied a framework requiring identification of areas of agreement, areas of disagreement, and identification of empirical data collection required to resolve disagreements. There is agreement that Australia has a problem with stray cats, causing problems of impacts on wildlife, nuisance, disease transmission (including public health issues and exchange of diseases between stray cat and pet cat populations), poor welfare outcomes for stray cats, and an emotional burden on staff euthanising healthy stray cats. There is disagreement on whether (i) current measures are failing, leading to unacceptably high euthanasia levels, (ii) some contributors to the debate misunderstand TNR, (iii) TNR trials will reduce urban cat populations and associated problems, (iv) TNR is an ethical solution to cat overpopulation, and (v) some contributors to the debate promulgated misinformation. Although not everyone agrees that TNR trials should proceed, as a hypothetical exploration, we propose an experimental approach explicitly comparing TNR to alternatives. Trials could only be considered if other detailed and well-funded attempts at stray cat control focusing across an entire Local Government Area (LGA) prove ineffective.