Journal of Parasitology Research
Volume 2021 (2021), Article ID 9976548, 7 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9976548

Research Article

Cystic Echinococcosis: Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices (KAP) among Surgically Operated Cases in Fars Province, Southern Iran

Zahra Hosseini,¹ Reza Shahriarirad,² and Bahador Sarkari1,3

¹Department of Parasitology and Mycology, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
²Student Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
³Basic Sciences in Infectious Diseases Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Correspondence should be addressed to Bahador Sarkari; sarkarib@sums.ac.ir

Received 6 March 2021; Revised 1 April 2021; Accepted 2 April 2021; Published 8 April 2021

Academic Editor: José F. Silveira

Copyright © 2021 Zahra Hosseini et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Introduction. Cystic echinococcosis (CE) is a neglected zoonotic disease caused by Echinococcus granulosus with major health and economic burden. The information on how the community members perceive the disease is crucial in order to recommend an effective preventive and control plan. The current study is aimed at finding out knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) of surgically operated cases of hydatid cyst in educational hospitals of Shiraz in Fars Province, southern Iran, toward the CE. Methods. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 180 CE patients who underwent surgery due to CE. Using a well-designed questionnaire, a telephone-based survey was carried out to collect the data. The contents of the questionnaire included basic personal information and questions related to the participants’ knowledge, attitude, and behavioral patterns toward CE. Univariate and then multivariate linear regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with the KAP. Unstandardized regression coefficients (β) and odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to quantify the associations between variables and KAP. Results. A total of 180 CE patients with a mean age of 35.64 (±17.59) years were recruited. The mean score of participant’s knowledge was 8.7 (, range: 0-17), whereas these scores were 1.3 (, range 0-2) for attitude and 1.2 (, range 0-4) for practice. Findings of the study demonstrated that 20 of the participants (11.1%) had good knowledge towards CE, 82 (45.6%) demonstrated a positive attitude, and 57 (47.5%) without having dogs demonstrated a good practice towards CE (), while from 60 dog owners, only 7 (11.6%) participants demonstrated good practice (score 3 and 4/4). Factors that were associated with knowledge were age (, value = 0.001) and educational level (, value = 0.001), where higher age was associated with lower knowledge and also higher educational levels were associated with higher knowledge regarding hydatid cyst. Regarding attitude, only living location had a significant association with participants’ attitude where those who were living in urban areas demonstrating a more positive attitude towards CE (, value = 0.022). The practice of the participants was grouped into dog owners and participants with no dogs, in which among participants who did not own a dog, those living in urban areas demonstrating weaker practice towards CE (, value>0.001). Moreover, a lack of counseling of patients after the surgery on how to prevent reinfection was noticed. Conclusion. Findings of the study revealed that the CE patients in southern Iran had poor knowledge and attitude toward the disease, and their practice may help in maintaining the disease in the community. Health education is highly needed to increase community awareness and to prevent and control this neglected parasitic infection in the area.

1. Introduction

Cystic echinococcosis (CE) or hydatid cyst is an infectious disease that affects both humans and animals. Livestock (especially sheep) serves as intermediate hosts for the transmission of CE, while canids, mainly dog, act as the definitive hosts. Human acquires the disease by accidental ingestion of eggs existing in dog feces [1, 2].

CE is a major health and economic challenge in the Middle East countries, including Iran where about 1% of all hospital surgeries are accounted for this disease [3–5]. The overall seroprevalence of CE in Iran is reported to be 4.2% with the highest prevalence in the South area with 5.8% and the least in the central area with 2.2% prevalence rate [6]. CE is one of the most important parasitic diseases in Fars Province in the south of Iran [5, 7, 8]. Fars Province is the center of agriculture and animal husbandry in Iran, and one of the most important and populated tribal nomads (Qashqai) resides in this area. The province is endemic focus for several parasitic diseases including visceral and cutaneous leishmaniasis [9, 10]. In a study by Shahriarirad et al. in Fars Province, a total of 501 CE surgical cases were recorded during 15 years, corresponding to an average annual incidence of 33.4 and a surgical incidence rate of 0.74/100,000 population [5].

To introduce and implement effective control measures, knowing the disease mode of transmission and its characteristics is crucial. According to the KAP theory, the controlling of the disease in the community is generally affected by people’s knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) concerning the disease [11, 12]. Public education is considered as one of the most important measures that can help control the CE, as has been the case in other diseases [13]. Hence, with CE prevention and control programs being a necessity, a well-enough knowledge of the disease accompanied by community cooperation can play a significant role in the success of these programs. The current study is aimed at determining the level of knowledge, attitude, and practices of patients who underwent surgery for hydatid cyst in Fars Province, southern Iran, about the risk factors for hydatid cyst.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, a list of hospitalized CE patients during a period of 6 years (2014–2020) was obtained at the main university-affiliated and referral hospitals in Shiraz, capital of Fars Province. Sample size estimation was done by the Med-Calc statistical software with an error of 5% and a power of 90%. The recruitment method was voluntary participation, and individuals unwilling to participate were excluded from the study. Also, subjects were assured that the results would be reviewed as a group and that the confidentiality of their responses would be preserved.

Only cases with a final diagnosis of any type of CE at hospital discharge which were recorded with a unique disease code (based on the ICD-9 and ICD-10: International Classification of Diseases; 122.9 and 122.8 for ICD9; B67.8, K77.0, B67.9, and J99.8 for ICD10) were included in the data analysis. The data collection tool in this study consisted of a standard and research designed questionnaire, in which each patient was contacted by telephone call and was asked a series of questions by the interviewer.

2.2. Ethical Consideration

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (Ref. No. IR.sums.med.rec.1399.419). Participants who verbally consented to be included in our study were enrolled.

2.3. Data Collection

Data collection was done through a researcher-developed questionnaire in which consisted of the following sections:

(1)Demographic variables including gender, age, province of residence, educational level, and occupation along with other factors regarding the patient’s history of CE(2)Knowledge, attitude, and practice questions, which consisted of 18 questions assessing the participants’ KAP towards CE(3)Seven additional questions including “Do you keep dogs in your area?” “Do you own livestock? (cattle, cow, sheep)” “Have you ever seen a hydatid cyst in an animal’s liver, lungs, or abdomen?” “Did your doctor or nurse give you information about hydatid cysts?” “Has anyone in your family been infected with hydatid cyst” “How severe or fatal do you think this disease is?” “What is your source of information about hydatid cysts?”

A correct answer was assigned as one point while an incorrect answer received no points.

2.4. Data Analysis

All the statistical analyses were performed, using Microsoft Excel 2007 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, USA) and statistical package for social sciences (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA, version 26.0). Univariate and then multivariate linear regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with participants’ KAP. Unstandardized regression coefficients (β) and odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to quantify the associations between variables and KAP. The statistical significance level was set at .

3. Results

A total of 180 CE patients were recruited in this study and contacted regarding their KAP towards CE. The mean age of the participants was 35.64 (±17.59). Table 1 demonstrates the demographic features of the participants in our study.

Table 1: Demographic features of participants in the study.

Variable
Frequency

Number
Percentage

Age group

    10-20
42
23.3

    21–30
39
21.7

    31–40
28
15.6

    41–50
27
15

    51-60
28
15.6

    > 60
16
8.9

Gender

    Male
91
50.6

    Female
89
49.4

Occupation

    Unemployed
102
56.7

    Self-employed
43
23.9

    Freelance
14
7.8

    Retired
8
4.4

    Nongovernmental employee
7
3.9

    Student
4
2.2

    Government employee
2
1.1

Educational level

    Illiterate
17
9.4

    Reading and writing
25
13.9

    Under high school diploma
78
43.3

    Diploma
42
23.3

    University degree
18
10

Residence

    Urban
88
48.9

    Rural
92
48.9

Marital status

    Single
72
40

    Married
108
60

Number of individuals in the household

    <5
118
65.6

    ≥ 5
62
34.4

Living location

    Apartment
21
11.7

    House/villa
159
88.3

Year of operation for CE

    2020
51
28.3

    2019
58
32.2

    2018
35
19.4

    2017
30
16.7

    2016
5
2.8

    2014
1
0.6

Location of CE

    Lung
118
65.6

    Liver
59
32.8

    Other locations
3
1.7

Number of CE

    One
68
41

    Two
58
34.9

    More than 2
40
24.1

The mean score of the participants’ knowledge toward CE was 8.7 (± 2.8, range: 0-17), the mean score of attitude was 1.3 (± 0.7, range 0-2), and the mean score of practice was 1.2 (±1.0, range 0 - 4) for dog owners and 1.4 (±0.7, range 0-2) for participants who did not own dogs. Table 2 shows the details of participants’ KAP toward CE, based on the questions asked.

Table 2: Questionnaire items and responses regarding KAP among participants with a history of hydatid cyst surgery.

Question
Answers
Frequency

Number
Percentage

Knowledge

    (1) Have you had heard about hydatid cyst before you were infected with it?

Yes
8
4.4

No
172
95.6

    (2) What are the symptoms of a hydatid cyst?

Gastrointestinal symptoms
73
40.6

Liver symptoms
41
22.8

Pulmonary symptoms
104
57.8

Cerebral symptoms
9
5

Do not know
43
23.9

    (3) Do you know which animal is the source and reservoir of hydatid cyst?

Dog
131
72.8

Cat
15
8.3

Sheep
9
5

Do not know
25
13.9

    (4) Do you know how a person can get infected with hydatid cyst?

Yes
122
67.8

No
58
32.2

    (5) Do you know what causes hydatid cyst disease?

Parasite
127
70.6

Microbe
16
8.9

Virus
1
0.6

Do not know
36
20

    (6) Do you know the route of transmission of hydatid cyst?

Yes
131
72.8

No
49
27.2

    (7) Do you know how to prevent hydatid cysts?

Yes
125
69.4

No
55
30.6

    (8) Do you think this disease is heritable?

Yes
18
10

No
162
90

    (9) To what extent do you think measures can be taken to prevent the disease?

Very high
93
51.7

High
63
35

Low
21
11.7

Very low
3
1.7

    (10) Did you know that playing with dogs can put you at risk for hydatid cyst disease?

Yes
142
78.9

No
5
2.8

Do not know
33
18.3

    (11) Is hydatid cyst transmitted to humans through eating the meat or liver of animals (sheep, cattle, goats)?

Yes
131
72.8

No
12
6.7

Do not know
37
20.6

    (12) Is hydatid cyst transmitted through vegetables that are not well washed?

Yes
162
90

No
2
1.1

Do not know
16
8.9

    (13) Can a person who gets hydatid cyst get the disease again?

Yes
74
41.1

No
31
17.2

Do not know
75
41.7

    (14) Is hydatid cyst transmitted in children through play with soil?

Yes
129
71.7

No
13
7.2

Do not know
38
21.1

Attitude

    (15) In your opinion, how much luck is involved in the development of hydatid cysts?

A lot
63
35

Not much
117
65

    (16) In case of infection, how much do you think traditional healers and local remedies can help treat you?

Very high
9
5

High
52
28.9

Low
68
37.8

Very low
51
28.3

Practice

    (17) What is your source of drinking water?

Tap water
125
69.4

Well
41
22.8

Fountain
14
7.8

    (18) Do you treat your dog for parasites?

Yes
22
12.2

No
38
21.1

Do not own a dog
120
66.7

    (19) If you keep dogs at home, do you use the liver, lungs, or other parts of sheep and goats to feed them?

Yes
43
23.9

No
17
9.4

Do not own
120
66.7

    (20) Do you sometimes butcher at home?

Yes
112
62.2

No
68
37.8

indicates the desired answer.

To further review and analyze the findings, the KAP of the participants were categorized into good, moderate, and weak. The knowledge score (ranging from 0-17) was grouped as score range of 0-5 as weak/low knowledge, 6–11 as moderate knowledge, and 12-17 as good knowledge towards CE. The findings demonstrated that 23 (12.8%) of the participants had low knowledge, while 137 (76.1%) had moderate knowledge, and 20 (11.1%) had good knowledge of CE.

Attitude score ranged from 0 to 2. Based on the results of our study, 82 (45.6%) of the participants demonstrated a positive attitude towards CE, while 72 (40%) demonstrated moderate, and 26 (14.4%) demonstrated a negative attitude towards CE. Based on the participants’ practice score, 57 (47.5%) of the participants without dogs demonstrated a good practice towards CE (), while 50 (41.7%) of them demonstrated moderate () and 13 (10.8%) demonstrated a weak practice towards CE (). Regarding the 60 dog owners, only 7 (11.6%) demonstrated good practice (score 3 and 4/4), while 12 (20%) demonstrated moderate practice (), and 41 (68.3%) demonstrated weak practice ( and 1/4) towards CE.

To evaluate the effect of the variables of our study in the participants’ KAP, multiple linear regression analysis was used, and the results are given in Table 3.

Table 3: Linear regression analysis of factors associated with KAP among participants with a history of hydatid cyst surgery.

Model
Beta

value

Knowledge

0.433
0.188

    Age
-0.49
-3.240
0.001

    Education (illiterate)
0.668
3.309
0.001

    Residence (urban)
-0.378
-0.940
0.349

    Marital status (single)
0.686
1.321
0.188

Attitude

0.175
0.031

    Age
0.001
0.339
0.735

    Education (illiterate)
0.035
0.627
0.531

    Residence (urban)
0.261
2.318
0.022

    Marital status (single)
-0.081
-0.559
0.577

Practice (no dog)

0.440
0.194

    Age
-0.004
-1.030
0.305

    Education (illiterate)
0.032
0.524
0.601

    Residence (urban)
-0.491
-4.174
>0.001

    Marital status (single)
-0.180
-1.215
0.227

Practice (dog owner)

0.342
0.117

    Age
-0.016
-1.306
0.197

    Education (illiterate)
0.070
0.459
0.648

    Residence (urban)
-0.303
-0.971
0.336

    Marital status (single)
0.157
0.392
0.696

As demonstrated in Table 3, factors that were associated with knowledge were age (, value = 0.001) and educational level (, value = 0.001), where higher age was associated with lower knowledge and also higher educational levels were associated with higher knowledge regarding hydatid cyst. Regarding attitude, only living location had a significant association, with participants living in urban areas demonstrating a more positive attitude towards CE (, value = 0.022).

The participants were also asked a series of additional questions, which are reported in Table 4. The sources of information for most of the participants have been social media and the internet. Moreover, a lack of counseling of patients after the surgery on how to prevent CE reinfection was noticed.

Table 4: Additional questions regarding participants’ perspective towards CE.

Questions
Frequency

Number
Percentage

(1) Do you keep dogs in your area?

    Yes
60
33.3

    No
120
66.7

(2) Do you own livestock? (cattle, cow, sheep)

    Yes
66
36.7

    No
114
63.3

(3) Have you ever seen a hydatid cyst in an animal’s liver, lungs, or abdomen?

    Yes
68
37.8

    No
112
62.2

(4) Did your doctor or nurse give you information about hydatid cysts?

    Yes
166
92.2

    No
14
7.8

(5) Has anyone in your family been infected with hydatid cyst?

    Yes
5
2.8

    No
175
97.2

(6) How severe or fatal do you think this disease is?

    Very high
93
51.7

    High
63
35

    Low
21
11.7

    Very low
3
1.7

(7) What is your source of information about hydatid cysts?

    Internet and social media
71
39.4

    Scientific articles and books
44
24.4

    Healthcare professionals and doctors
165
91.7

    None
12
6.7

4. Discussion

In the current study, the KAP of CE patients towards the disease was assessed. As our results show, knowledge, attitude, and practice of the CE patients were relatively low with only 11.1% of the participants demonstrating good knowledge, 45.6% demonstrating a positive attitude, and 11.6% of dog owners and 47.5% of participants with no dog demonstrating suitable practice towards CE.

Our results are similar to the findings of Abdulhameed et al., a study on surgical cases of CE in Iraq, which reported that 72% of the participants had not heard of CE and 57% did not know the mode of transmission of hydatid cysts, even after surgery for the disease [14].

In a community based cross-sectional study by Dan Li et al. [1] in Xiahe County, in China, 65.9% of the participants have heard the name of CE. A study in Pakistan by Khan et al. [15], regarding the knowledge, attitudes, and practices on the occurrence of CE in butchers and dog owners in both urban and rural areas of Rawalpindi/Islamabad regions, showed that only 4.1% of people have heard about the disease. In a study regarding KAP towards CE in China by Yin et al. [16], the findings indicated that the KAP rate for all participants was 72.6%, 6.4%, 95.0%, and 75.8% for KAP, , , and , respectively. The KAP rates were significantly different among different age and gender groups.

In a study in Ethiopia [17] on risk factors on public awareness, attitude, and practices of CE, only 4.29% of pastoralists responded that they were aware of the occurrence of the disease in human, but none of them were knowledgeable on its sources and transmission.

A cross-sectional survey by Ahmed et al. [18], in three villages around the city of Tambool in Central Sudan, showed that 68.7% of the participants had never heard of the disease.

A study in Turkey [19] on 151 farmers regarding KAP towards CE showed that the knowledge level of livestock farmers is very low (21.9%). A study by Ozlu et al. [20] on 1,045 cattle farmers in Erzurum in Turkey showed that the increase in education status, size of the enterprise, and monthly income of cattle farmers were related to an increase in knowledge, attitude, and practices regarding zoonotic diseases. However, it was found that the positive knowledge and attitudes of the cattle farmers could not be transformed into positive practices evenly.

Singh et al. [21] conducted a study to find out the knowledge, attitude, and practices of livestock farmers regarding zoonoses in India where the low level of education and being a cattle farmer were negatively associated with the farmer’s knowledge on zoonotic diseases.

Our results are also in line with the findings of other questionnaire surveys conducted in Libya and Morocco [22, 23], which found that the majority of respondents had limited to no information about the transmission of CE. Increasing knowledge and information regarding diseases is an essential step towards the management and prevention of the disease.

Among the noteworthy results of our study is that only 11.6% of dog owners demonstrated suitable practice towards CE. Studies from southern Iran regarding free-roaming and stray dogs reported a prevalence of 10.7% to 36.19% for E. granulosus infection in dogs [24, 25]. The close contact of people with dogs, combined with feeding offal, along with environmental contamination enhances the likelihood of transmission of this zoonotic tapeworm to humans, especially the children [7, 26, 27].

In our study, 62.5% of the participants reported slaughtering and butchering at home. Abdulhameed et al. reported that around 50% of surgical cases of CE in Iraq performed home slaughtering and butchering [14]. Many studies have highlighted the effect of the common practice of slaughtering animals by householders in or near their homes on CE infection [28, 29]. It is obvious that under the supervision of a veterinarian, the slaughter of animals in a slaughterhouse reduces the ability to complete the life cycle of Echinococcus by ensuring proper disposal of infected offal [30].

In partnership with the veterinary authorities, the health authorities in Iran and also in any CE-endemic areas need to establish and introduce educational programs on echinococcosis for farmers, pet owners, and the general population. These initiatives should include information on the need for deworming of dogs; better hygiene for food preparation; animal slaughter at home, including strict instructions on how to extract infected offal; how to disrupt the life cycle of Echinococcus and how to avoid its development; and practices to reduce the dog infection.

5. Conclusion

Findings of the current study revealed that the CE patients in southern Iran had poor knowledge and attitude toward the disease, and their improper practice may help in maintaining the disease in the community. Successful education and awareness programs in the community for the prevention and control of CE can be of great benefit. Improving the degree of awareness of the community about CE is the groundwork for the prevention and management of the diseases which in turn improves the attitude of people in the community.

Data Availability

The nominal and ordinal data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

BS and RS designed the study. ZH and RS were involved in data collection and data analysis. RS prepared the manuscript draft. BS edited and approved the draft. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

This study was the subject of the MD dissertation of Dr. Zahra Hosseini. The study was financially supported by the office of Vice-Chancellor for Research, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (Grant No. 97-01-01-18960). Technical assistance of Sepehr Shahriarirad is acknowledged.

References

D. Li, Q. Gao, J. Liu et al., “Knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) and risk factors analysis related to cystic echinococcosis among residents in Tibetan communities, Xiahe County, Gansu Province, China,” Acta Tropica, vol. 147, pp. 17–22, 2015.

C. M. Coyle and T. Junghanss, “Cystic Echinococcosis,” in Hunter's Tropical Medicine and Emerging Infectious Diseases, pp. 946–953, Elsevier, 2020.

P. Deplazes, L. Rinaldi, C. A. Alvarez Rojas et al., “Global distribution of alveolar and cystic echinococcosis,” Advances in Parasitology, vol. 95, pp. 315–493, 2017.

M. Fasihi Harandi, C. M. Budke, and S. Rostami, “The monetary burden of cystic echinococcosis in Iran,” PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 6, no. 11, article e1915, 2012.

R. Shahriarirad, A. Erfani, M. Eskandarisani, M. Rastegarian, H. Taghizadeh, and B. Sarkari, “Human cystic echinococcosis in southwest Iran: a 15-year retrospective epidemiological study of hospitalized cases,” Tropical Medicine and Health, vol. 48, no. 1, 2020.

H. R. Khalkhali, M. Foroutan, S. Khademvatan et al., “Prevalence of cystic echinococcosis in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Helminthology, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 260–268, 2018.

B. Sarkari, N. Arefkhah, F. Ghorbani et al., “Seroprevalence of cystic Echinococcosis and related risk factors for infection among children in a rural community in Fars Province, Southern Iran,” Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 13–16, 2020.

R. Shahriarirad, A. Erfani, M. Eskandarisani, M. Rastegarian, and B. Sarkari, “Uncommon Locations of Cystic Echinococcosis: A Report of 46 Cases from Southern Iran,” Surgery Research and Practice, vol. 2020, 6 pages, 2020.

B. Sarkari, T. Naraki, M. A. Ghatee, S. Abdolahi Khabisi, and M. H. Davami, “Visceral Leishmaniasis in southwestern Iran: a retrospective clinico-hematological analysis of 380 consecutive hospitalized cases (1999-2014),” PLoS One, vol. 11, no. 3, article e0150406, 2016.

M. A. Ghatei, G. R. Hatam, M. H. Hossini, and B. Sarkari, “Performance of latex agglutination test (KAtex) in diagnosis of visceral leishmaniasis in Iran,” Iranian Journal of Immunology, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 202–207, 2009.

K. Ajilore, I. Atakiti, and K. Onyenankeya, “College students’ knowledge, attitudes and adherence to public service announcements on Ebola in Nigeria: suggestions for improving future Ebola prevention education programmes,” Health Education Journal, vol. 76, no. 6, pp. 648–660, 2017.

N. Tachfouti, K. Slama, M. Berraho, and C. Nejjari, “The impact of knowledge and attitudes on adherence to tuberculosis treatment: a case-control study in a Moroccan region,” Pan African Medical Journal, vol. 12, 2012.

D. M. Bell and World Health Organization Working Group on Prevention of International and Community Transmission of SARS, “Public health interventions and SARS spread, 2003,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 1900–1906, 2004.

M. F. Abdulhameed, I. D. Robertson, S. A. al-Azizz, and I. Habib, “Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of 50 patients with surgically treated cystic echinococcosis from Basrah Province, Iraq,” Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health, vol. 8, no. 3-4, pp. 196–202, 2018.

A. Khan, K. Naz, H. Ahmed et al., “Knowledge, attitudes and practices related to cystic echinococcosis endemicity in Pakistan,” Infectious Diseases of Poverty, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 4, 2018.

J. Yin, Q. Gongsang, L. Wang, C. Li, and X. Wu, “Identification of vulnerable populations and knowledge, attitude, and practice analysis of echinococcosis in Tibet Autonomous Region of China,” Environmental Research, vol. 190, p. 110061, 2020.

D. Gebremichael, A. Feleke, G. Tesfamaryam, H. Awel, and Y. Tsigab, “Knowledge, attitude and practices of hydatidosis in Pastoral community with relation to public health risks in Ayssaita, northeastern of Ethiopia,” Global Veterinaria, vol. 11, pp. 272–279, 2013.

M. E. Ahmed, O. A. Hassan, A. K. Khalifa et al., “Echinococcosis in Tambool, Central Sudan: a knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) study,” International Health, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 490–494, 2018.

H. Çakmur, L. Akoğlu, E. Kahraman, and M. Atasever, “Evaluation of farmers’ knowledge-attitude-practice about zoonotic diseases in Kars, Turkey,” Kafkas J Med Sci, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 87–93, 2015.

H. Özlü, M. Atasever, and M. A. Atasever, “Knowledge, attitude, and practices of cattle farmers regarding zoonotic diseases in Erzurum, Turkey,” Austral journal of veterinary sciences, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 79–85, 2020.

B. B. Singh, R. Kaur, G. S. Gill, J. P. S. Gill, R. K. Soni, and R. S. Aulakh, “Knowledge, attitude and practices relating to zoonotic diseases among livestock farmers in Punjab, India,” Acta Tropica, vol. 189, pp. 15–21, 2019.

I. E. Buishi, E. M. Njoroge, O. Bouamra, and P. S. Craig, “Canine echinococcosis in Northwest Libya: assessment of coproantigen ELISA, and a survey of infection with analysis of risk-factors,” Veterinary Parasitology, vol. 130, no. 3-4, pp. 223–232, 2005.

I. El Berbri, M. J. Ducrotoy, A.-F. Petavy et al., “Knowledge, attitudes and practices with regard to the presence, transmission, impact, and control of cystic echinococcosis in Sidi Kacem Province, Morocco,” Infectious Diseases of Poverty, vol. 4, no. 1, article 48, 2015.

A. Keyhani, I. Sharifi, M. Bamorovat et al., “Epidemiological and molecular studies on Echinococcus granulosus from free-roaming dogs in Southeast Iran,” Vet world, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 739–745, 2019.

D. Mehrabani, A. Oryan, and S. M. Sadjjadi, “Prevalence of Echinococcus granulosus infection in stray dogs and herbivores in Shiraz, Iran,” Veterinary Parasitology, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 217–220, 1999.

P. M. Schantz, H. Wang, J. Qiu et al., “Echinococcosis on the Tibetan Plateau: prevalence and risk factors for cystic and alveolar echinococcosis in Tibetan populations in Qinghai Province, China,” Parasitology, vol. 127, no. S1, pp. S109–S120, 2003.

A. Possenti, R. Manzano-Román, C. Sánchez-Ovejero et al., “Potential risk factors associated with human cystic echinococcosis: systematic review and meta-analysis,” PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 10, no. 11, article e0005114, 2016.

T. M. Galeh, A. Spotin, M. Mahami-Oskouei et al., “The seroprevalence rate and population genetic structure of human cystic echinococcosis in the Middle East: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” International Journal of Surgery, vol. 51, pp. 39–48, 2018.

M. Nasrieh, S. K. Abdel-Hafez, S. A. Kamhawi, P. S. Craig, and P. M. Schantz, “Cystic echinococcosis in Jordan: socioeconomic evaluation and risk factors,” Parasitology Research, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 456–466, 2003.

A. Ito, C. Urbani, Q. Jiamin et al., “Control of echinococcosis and cysticercosis: a public health challenge to international cooperation in China,” Acta Tropica, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 3–17, 2003.