Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
186,123 studies31 sourcesUpdated 58 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0PLOS One

Facilitators and barriers to community-based livestock abortion reporting for Rift Valley Fever surveillance in Uganda: A COM-B analysis

  • Abel W. Walekhwa1
  • Andrew J.K. Conlan2
  • Lydia N. Namakula3
  • Brenda Nakazibwe4
  • Salome A. Bukachi5
  • James L.N. Wood6
  • Lawrence Mugisha7
7 affiliations
  1. 1Diseases Dynamics Unit, Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  2. 2IDEMU Mathematical Modelling Unit, Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda
  3. 3Pathogen Economy Bureau, Science, Technology and Innovation Secretariat, Office of the President, Kampala, Uganda
  4. 4Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda
  5. 5Department of Anthropology, Gender and African Studies, University of Nairobi, Kenya
  6. 6Makerere University College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Biosecurity, Kampala, Uganda
  7. 7Ecohealth Research Group, Conservation and Ecosystem Health Alliance (CEHA), Kampala, Uganda
Open at sourcePDFDOICite

Abstract

Rift Valley Fever Disease (RVFD) causes substantial economic losses via livestock abortion storms, yet community-based abortion reporting for early warning remains suboptimal in endemic settings. This study analysed the behavioural determinants of livestock abortion reporting to inform RVF surveillance interventions in Uganda. We conducted a cross-sectional study using qualitative data collection methods in Isingiro District, Uganda, employing the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation–Behaviour (COM-B) framework. We conducted 29 key informant interviews with national/district policymakers and technical officers and 17 focus group discussions involving livestock owners, abattoir operators, and local leaders. Transcripts underwent deductive thematic analysis using NVivo-12, with independent coding verification and member checking. Barriers and facilitators were ranked by frequency and thematic emphasis, and a comparative analysis was conducted across participant groups. The most frequently cited barrier was poor community knowledge about RVF, while the most powerful demotivator was the absence of post-reporting feedback. Key facilitators included mobile phone platforms, community governance structures, and fear of economic and cultural loss. Our study recommends that sustainable abortion reporting requires simultaneous intervention across capability, opportunity, and motivation domains. Priority interventions could include: integrating reporting into Uganda’s electronic surveillance platforms, co-developing local RVF names with communities, establishing reliable feedback mechanisms, addressing veterinary staffing gaps in remote areas, and implementing no-blame reporting protocols. Effective RVF surveillance depends on reinforcing existing community structures while ensuring responsive feedback that validates reporters’ contributions.

Related

  1. Pre-implementation barriers and facilitators to implementing a physical activity guideline for community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a qualitative stakeholder study
    Zi Tian, Shi Zhang, Xinli Ni +8
    BMC Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Epidemiology & public healthCrossref
  2. Community-based malaria surveillance in Cambodia using a mobile reporting app for village malaria workers: An implementation case study
    Pengby Ngor, Huy Rekol, Siv Sovannaroth +13
    PLOS Digital HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textEpidemiology & public healthPLOS
  3. Exploring enablers and barriers for implementing community-based surveillance strengthening early detection and response in District Mardan Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan
    Zeeshan Iqbal Baig, Babar Tasneem Shaikh, Muhammad Salman
    Discover Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textEpidemiology & public healthDOAJ
  4. Barriers and facilitators to telerehabilitation adherence in young and middle-aged stroke survivors: a qualitative COM-B analysis
    Yiling Huang, Meilan Su, Yingying Chen +1
    Frontiers in neurologyPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textNeurologyEurope PMC
  5. Intersectional Barriers to and Facilitators of Educational Inclusion for Persons With Disabilities in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Literature Review
    Yusufu Simra, Shani Omari, Hussein Mwanjali
    Health science reportsPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{walekhwa2026facilitators,
  title = {{Facilitators and barriers to community-based livestock abortion reporting for Rift Valley Fever surveillance in Uganda: A COM-B analysis}},
  author = {Abel W. Walekhwa and Andrew J.K. Conlan and Lydia N. Namakula and Brenda Nakazibwe and Salome A. Bukachi and James L.N. Wood and Lawrence Mugisha},
  journal = {PLOS One},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0359872},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0359872},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Facilitators and barriers to community-based livestock abortion reporting for Rift Valley Fever surveillance in Uganda: A COM-B analysis
AU  - Abel W. Walekhwa
AU  - Andrew J.K. Conlan
AU  - Lydia N. Namakula
AU  - Brenda Nakazibwe
AU  - Salome A. Bukachi
AU  - James L.N. Wood
AU  - Lawrence Mugisha
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/08
JO  - PLOS One
DO  - 10.1371/journal.pone.0359872
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0359872
AB  - Rift Valley Fever Disease (RVFD) causes substantial economic losses via livestock abortion storms, yet community-based abortion reporting for early warning remains suboptimal in endemic settings. This study analysed the behavioural determinants of livestock abortion reporting to inform RVF surveillance interventions in Uganda. We conducted a cross-sectional study using qualitative data collection methods in Isingiro District, Uganda, employing the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation–Behaviour (COM-B) framework. We conducted 29 key informant interviews with national/district policymakers and technical officers and 17 focus group discussions involving livestock owners, abattoir operators, and local leaders. Transcripts underwent deductive thematic analysis using NVivo-12, with independent coding verification and member checking. Barriers and facilitators were ranked by frequency and thematic emphasis, and a comparative analysis was conducted across participant groups. The most frequently cited barrier was poor community knowledge about RVF, while the most powerful demotivator was the absence of post-reporting feedback. Key facilitators included mobile phone platforms, community governance structures, and fear of economic and cultural loss. Our study recommends that sustainable abortion reporting requires simultaneous intervention across capability, opportunity, and motivation domains. Priority interventions could include: integrating reporting into Uganda’s electronic surveillance platforms, co-developing local RVF names with communities, establishing reliable feedback mechanisms, addressing veterinary staffing gaps in remote areas, and implementing no-blame reporting protocols. Effective RVF surveillance depends on reinforcing existing community structures while ensuring responsive feedback that validates reporters’ contributions.
SN  - 1932-6203
ER  -