Improving Biosecurity in Live Bird Markets Lessons Learned Report Prepared by

Evaluation of Avian Influenza

Communication for Development Initiative-

Improving Biosecurity in Live Bird Markets

Lessons Learned Report

DISCLAIMER

This research exercise was funded by UNICEF.

However, UNICEF accepts no legal liabilities orresponsibility for the accuracy, completeness orusefulness of any information, product orprocess disclosed in the document therein.

Neither does UNICEF accept any legal liabilityfor the consequences of any action taken on thebasis of the information provided unless thatinformation is subsequently confirmed inwriting. The views or opinions presented aresolely those of the authors and do notnecessarily represent those of UNICEF.

Evaluation of Avian InfluenzaCommunication for Development Initiative- Improving Biosecurity in Live Bird Markets


Prepared by:

Center for Communicable Diseases, icddr,b68, Shaheed Tajuddin Ahmed Sarani, Mohakhali, Dhaka-1212

Tel: +8802-9840523-32, Ext 2500; Fax: (+8802) 9843963

Submitted to:

UNICEF Bangladesh

November 2013

Photo Credit: icddr,b

Design & Layout: Dhrupadi


Evaluation of Avian Influenza Communication for Development

Initiative- Improving Biosecurity in Live Bird Marketsiii

Project information:Period 13 August 2012 to 13 March 2013

Location 16 live bird markets in Dhaka City and Gazipur

Research collaborators Center for Communicable Diseases, icddr,b,

UNICEF Bangladesh

icddr,b information Director

Dr. James Heffelfinger

Center for Communicable Diseases, icddr,b

68, Shaheed Tajuddin Ahmed Sarani, Mohakhali

Dhaka-1212

Tel: +8802-9840523-32, Ext 2500;

Fax: (+8802) 9843963

Team Head

Dr. Katharine Sturm-Ramirez

Head, Respiratory Viruses Research GroupCenter for Communicable Diseases, icddr,b

Team members

Dr. Sharifa Nasreen (Quantitative)

Rebeca Sultana and Nadia Ali Rimi (Qualitative)

UNICEF information Nance Webber

Chief, Communication for Development (C4D)

UNICEF Bangladesh

BSL Office Complex, 1 Minto Road, Dhaka 1000,Bangladesh

Tel: (880-2) 8852266 ext. 7370, Fax: (880-2) 9335641-2

Anu Puri

Communication for Development Specialist (EID &Emergencies)

UNICEF Bangladesh

Partner organizations Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research(IEDCR)

Department of Livestock Services (DLS)

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)

World Health Organization (WHO)



Initiative- Improving Biosecurity in Live Bird Marketsiv

List of AcronymsAI Avian Influenza

BCC Behaviour Change Communication

C4D Communication for Development

DLS Department of Livestock Service

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

HPAI Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza

IEDCR Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research

IPC Interpersonal Communication

IQR Interquartile Range

LBM Live Bird Market

LPAI Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza

NGO Non-governmental Organization

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

RME Research Monitoring and Evaluation

UNICEF United Nation’s Children Fund

WHO World Health Organization



Initiative- Improving Biosecurity in Live Bird Marketsv

ContentsList of Acronyms iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

BACKGROUND 13

Monitoring of the intervention sessions: 15

Objectives of the intervention evaluation 15

Outcomes/Expected outputs of the Phase-1 C4D intervention 16

METHODOLOGY 16

Study sites 16

Study population 16

Quantitative Methods 17

Qualitative Methods 19

Ethical issues 21

Quantitative assessment 23

Findings 23

Qualitative Findings 37

LIMITATIONS 76

CONCLUSIONS 77

References 83

APPENDIX 1 : Structured Observation Tool 87

APPENDIX 2 : Structured Questionnaire 91

APPENDIX 3 : Spot Observation Form 104

APPENDIX 4 : Guideline for indepth interview (IDI) with member of marketassociation 115

APPENDIX 5 : Guideline for in-depth interview with poultry workers 118

APPENDIX 6 : Guideline for focus group discussion (FGD) with market association 123

APPENDIX 7 : Guideline for exit interview with customers of live bird markets 126

APPENDIX 8 : Tools for monitoring 127

APPENDIX 9 : Communication Materials 143



Initiative- Improving Biosecurity in Live Bird Marketsvi



Initiative- Improving Biosecurity in Live Bird Markets1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

The Government of Bangladesh’s Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research(IEDCR) and Department of Livestock Services (DLS) and UNICEF implemented ‘Phase-1’ ofthe live bird market C4D initiative from September 2012 to January 2013. The C4Dinitiative, a behaviour change communication intervention, was designed to improve theknowledge and threat perception of avian influenza as well as the bio-security practices ofthe poultry workers in the live bird markets. This first phase served as a learning phase as thefindings from this phase will be used for scaling up the initiative in all live bird markets inthe vulnerable districts nationwide. In order to evaluate the communication initiative,icddr,b first conducted a pre-intervention assessment study during August and October 2012to assess the baseline knowledge, attitude, risk perceptions of the poultry workers andmarket association members prior to the initiation of the behaviour change communicationactivities. The research team also explored the poultry workers’ constraints, motivation andpracticability in implementing biosecurity measures and practices. After completion of thecommunication intervention, icddr,b conducted a post-intervention assessment from Januarythrough March 2013 to assess the impact of the intervention on knowledge, attitude and bio-security practices related to avian influenza, to identify gaps in the communication initiativeand to recommend measures for subsequent scaling up for phase 2 of the initiative.

The intervention on improving bio-security in Live Bird Markets

The communication activities were limited to the issues related to prevention and control ofAI with extensive use of techniques such as group communication aids and inter-personalcommunication. Half-day weekly sessions with the poultry handlers, vendors, slaughterersand workers, focused on the improvement of biosecurity practices and human risk associatedwith H5N1 were rolled out in each market. The sessions included film shows or folk songshows, dialogue around bio-security measures and preventive health behaviours (Table 1);and IEC materials (festoons and leaflets) distribution. A total of 8 film show sessions and 4folk song sessions were held in each market. Before starting the communication activities inthe markets, one half day advocacy session was held with the market association heads ofall markets to brief them on the initiative and consensus building. Later two advocacysessions were held with the market association members: one in October to informchallenges and sharing experiences and the other in November to collect feedback on theover-all initiative and future steps to ensure bio-security in the markets.




Table 1: Recommended bio-security and preventive health measures emphasized in thebehavior change communication material

Methods

International Centre for Diarrheal Diseases Research; Bangladesh employed bothquantitative and qualitative methods for data collection regarding knowledge, attitude andpractices regarding avian influenza, including poultry handling and slaughtering practices,personal preventive measures, hygiene and waste management practices. During the pre-intervention assessment, icddr,b conducted structured observations in 16 live bird marketsas well as interviews with 130 randomly selected live bird market poultry workers and 15available and consenting market association members using a structured questionnaire.During the post-intervention assessment, icddr,b conducted structured observation in 16 livebird markets and interviewed 130 randomly selected poultry workers and 16 available andconsenting market association members. The poultry workers were randomly selected beforeeach assessment and therefore some of them may be included at both assessments. Themarket association members for the two assessments were different as they were selectedbased on availability and willingness to participate. In 10 of these 16 markets, icddr,bconducted spot observations. In four of the 10 markets, icddr,b also conducted detailedobservations for 38.5 hours, in-depth interviews with 16 workers and shop owners and threegroup discussions with market association members. During post-intervention assessment,icddr, b conducted structured observations in 16 live bird markets and interviewed 130 livebird market poultry workers and 16 market association members. icddr,b conducted 10 spotobservations and 20 exit interviews with customers in the same 10 markets. In the same fourmarkets, icddr,b conducted 33.8 hours of detailed observation, 16 indepth interviews withworkers and shop owners and two group discussions with market association members. Theterm ‘bird flu’ used in the report refers to highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1virus.

Bio-security measures Preventive health

Do not trade, give away or eat sick ordead birds

Keep chickens and ducks in the separatebaskets/pens

Dispose offal and waste in specificdustbins daily.

Clean cages and shop area withdetergent and water daily

Support weekly closure of the LBM fordestocking, and thorough cleaning anddisinfection

Do not touch sick or dead bird with barehands as it can increase the risk ofcontracting AI infection

Do not touch offal , blood and excreta ofsick/dead bird with bare hands as it canincrease the risk of contracting AIinfection

All slaughters/Processors should weargloves, masks while slaughtering andprocessing birds.

Wash hands with soap afterslaughtering, processing every batch ofpoultry and disposing offal and wastematerial




Key Findings from Quantitative Assessment

Knowledge on recommended bio-security and preventive health measuresamong participants aware of avian influenza:

Among study participants who had heard of avian influenza, a higher proportion of poultryworkers knew at least two out of the nine recommended bio-security measures after theintervention (18%) compared to before the intervention (12%). This is a 6% absoluteincrease that is below the targeted level of 30% and not statistically significant. A lowerproportion of market association members knew at least two of the nine recommendedbehaviours after the intervention (7%) compared to before the intervention (29%).

Among the five recommended bio-security measures, only one measure (not to trade, giveaway or eat sick or dead birds) was mentioned by the poultry workers. None mentionedkeeping chickens and ducks separately or disposal of offal and waste in specific dustbinsdaily or weekly market closure both before and after the intervention. Few mentioned aboutcleaning shop in general but none mentioned about cleaning cages and shops with detergentand water daily.

Attitude of the poultry workers:

Among the poultry workers who knew at least 2 recommended bio-security/preventivemeasures, there was a 4% absolute increase in reported attitude as indicated by the proxyindicators such as availability of soap, gloves and masks after the intervention compared tobefore the intervention (17% before versus 21% after). This is below the targeted level of10% increase and not statistically significant.

Self-reported practice of bio-security measures:

Among the workers who knew at least 2 recommended bio-security/preventive measures,there was a 9% absolute increase in self-reported not keeping different types of poultry in thesame basket/cage and an 18% absolute increase in reported observation of weekly closureof the market after the intervention compared to before the intervention. Though theseincreases are above the targeted level of 5%, these were not statistically significant. On theother hand, reported practice of bio-security measures decreased after the intervention fortwo recommended behavours (disposed offal and waste in specific dustbin daily and cleanedcages and shop area with water and detergent daily). None of the workers mentioned thatthey did not sell sick or dead poultry both before and after the intervention.

Self-reported and observed practice of preventive health measures:

Among the workers who knew at least 2 recommended bio-security/preventive measures,there was a 8% absolute increase in reported use of gloves and mask while slaughtering,processing or disposal after the intervention compared to before the intervention but this wasnot statistically significant. None of the workers reported washing hands with soap afterslaughtering, processing or disposal of wastes both before and after the intervention.

During the structured observations, the quantitative research team observed 513 events and503 events related to high risk practices (such as slaughtering, defeathering and evisceration,either alone or in combination) before and after the intervention respectively. Observed




preventive health measures were comparable with self-reported practices and no change wasobserved in the practices after the intervention. Soap was not available at the place of handwashing for any of the observed hand washing events after the intervention. Therecommended steps for handwashing (i.e., wet both hands with water, rub in-betweenfingers of both hands, rub palm of both hands, rinse off soap from both hands with runningwater, dry both hands using clean gamcha [traditional towel]/towel) were not observedamong any of our participants during both before and after the intervention as soap was notused for any of the observed hand washing episodes.

Key findings from qualitative exploration

Physical conditionof the 10 live birdmarkets

The total number of shops: 194 before intervention, 193 afterintervention.

Floors were mainly cemented, with the exception of tiled and mudfloor in a few shops. Many cemented and tiled shops had damagedflooring.

Most of the shops and common slaughtering places did not havewater source points.

Shops of three markets were not connected to the drainage system.Many of the common slaughtering places did not have adjacentdrains or liquid disposal facility.

Observed use ofintervention inthe market

Among 16 informants, 13 reported attending at least onedissemination session. The reasons cited for not attending thesession/part of the session were; busy attending customers, missingpart of the show due to absence in the market, going back to shopfor the fear of reprisal by the employer (shop owner), going backhome for lunch, not being invited and not being invited to attendand being absent from the market on the day of the interventionactivities (either at home village or at home with family).

All the informants related the intervention with cleanliness and61% of them related the intervention with bird flu or control ofbird flu. Most frequent responses on cleanliness related to cleaningcages and shop area (20%), cleaning slaughtering places andequipments (15%) and handwashing (16%).

None of the informants mentioned any message referring to ‘nottouching sick or dead bird or offal, blood and excreta of sick/deadbird with bare hands as it can increase the risk of contracting AIinfection’, two of the preventive health messages included in thecommunication intervention.

Most of the responses did not fully match the recommendedmessage. They mentioned recommendations on cleaning theshops but none mentioned the complete message that includedthe conditions ‘with detergent and water’ and ‘daily’.

Eleven informants reported that the docudrama’s core theme wasabout cleanliness and that the folksong was about bird flu.




Types of poultryhousing used inthe markets

The use of different poultry housing configurations remainedessentially unchanged after the intervention.

The explanations provided for using different housing arrangementfor different bird species were similar for pre-intervention and post-intervention informants. Only one informant reported hearing arecommendation regarding the use of metal cages so that theycould be washed daily.

None of the market association members mentioned hearing anymessage or recommendation on poultry housing.

Observed use ofintervention inthe market

The number of shops that kept the different species of bird inseparate housing arrangement increased; 79% beforeintervention compared to 87% after intervention.

Accordingly, the number of shops that kept two or more speciestogether decreased; 21% before intervention compared to 13%after intervention. However, the research team still observedchickens and ducks being housed together in several market shopsafter the intervention.

None reported to believe that housing different bird species/breedtogether would increase risk of disease transmission.

One informant informed hearing message on separating chickenand duck from the intervention.

Cleaning ofpoultry housingquarters

There was no change in the cleaning practices of the poultryhousing quarters after the intervention.

For bamboo baskets, dusting off with dry broom or wooden stickwas practiced.

For metal cages, daily dusting with broom, washing with waterafter scrapping off dry feces with a knife and wipping with a wetcloth once a month and washing with detergent and water once ina year were practiced.

Cleaning of shoparea, equipmentand slaughteringplace

There was no change in the cleaning practices of the market areaafter the intervention period. Most commonly reported methodsof cleaning were dry sweeping and cleaning with water only.

Backyard poultry shops reported only dry sweeping of floor 1-3times per day.

Broiler/layer shops reported dry sweeping, washing the floor areawith water/hot water, or water and detergent at least once beforeclosing at night.

Slaughtering corners and slaughtering equipments in the shopswere cleaned with water before closing at night.

Cleaning of common slaughtering area entailed dry sweeping inthe morning and washing with water and broom at least twicedaily, usually at noon and before closing at night.




More than half of the informants (10/16) reported hearing aboutcleaning of shop, slaughtering place and equipments from theintervention sessions.

Waste disposalpractices

There was no change in waste disposal practices of the marketarea after the intervention period.

Offal were stored in a container and sold to fish farmers oncedaily.

Skin and wings were piled up on the floor and later sold or takenaway by women or children.

Feathers were dumped on the floors of the shops and marketcleaners later disposed of these in the market’s open space or inthe common waste disposal area.

In shops without drainage facilities, processing or dressingmachine wastewater either spilled on to the walkways and driedoff on the ground or was stored in a container and later disposedoff in the main drain or open market disposal places at theirconvenience.

Although there were large disposal bins (provided by Dhaka CityCorporation) in eight markets, waste was disposed off in openareas in all markets observed.

Few informants (2/16) reported hearing about proper wastedisposal practices during the intervention.

Weekly closureday

There was limited implementation of the weekly market closureand cleaning day. Additionally, there was limited understandingof the purpose of the market weekly closure and the closure wasperceived as being associated with financial loss by shop ownersand poultry workers. The intervention did not change thisperception.

Five markets reporting having a weekly closure day (Monday)during pre-intervention assessment while six markets reported aweekly closure day (Monday) during post-intervention assessment.Two of these six markets reported not following the weeklyclosure.

Five informants reported that the objective of a weekly closure wasto support market cleaning activities and one thought its purposewas to help remove bad smell.

In the markets that followed a weekly closure day, no difference incleaning practices were observed on the closure day other than theregular cleaning practices in the markets that followed a weeklyclosure day as found before intervention. However, some cleaningactivities were carried out at the night prior closure day.

No destocking or disinfection activities observed or reportedduring that day.




Few informants (2/16) reported hearing any message regarding theweekly market closure day from the intervention.

Association members of one market reported hearing about therecommendation of a weekly closure day for cleaning in theintervention.

Personalprotectiveequipment (PPE)

Observed use of PPE was very low. The intervention did not haveany observable impact on the use of available PPE by marketworkers.

After intervention, three persons were observed to wear PPE.Among them, two were same persons who wore mask or apronbefore intervention. A slaughterer wore gumboots. Among theremaining workers, none reported currently using any PPE for anyactivity.

Similar barriers for using PPE were identified during pre-and post-intervention assessments. These included:

Raising suspicion of customers

Hinderance in carrying processing tasks while wearing glovesor gumboots

Discomfort of wearing masks for long periods of time

Tearing of gloves while working

Nine informants reported hearing recommendations on usingpersonal protective equipment from the intervention sessions.

In the two group discussions, market association membersmentioned that they heard about the recommendation of usinggloves, mask and gumboot in the intervention.

Hand hygiene Handwashing with soap remains infrequent. The intervention didnot have any observable impact on handwashing behavior.

Rinsing hands with water only during slaughtering and processingwas a common practice, both reported and observed. This isconsistent for both pre- and post-intervention assessments.

Similar barriers for handwashing with soap were identified duringpre-and post-intervention assessments. These included:

Unavailability of soap and water

Lack of time

Frequent use of soap causes skin problems

Among recipients of the intervention, 10 informants reportedhearing a message on handwashing. However, none of themreported practicing any of the hand washing recommendationsafter intervention.




They mentioned the reasons behind this recommendation weremaintaining cleanliness and avoiding risk of getting disease.

Four informants reproted the steps of handwashing; two of thesefour informants could mention all five steps.

None of the market association members mentioned receiving anymessage on handwashing from the intervention.

Handling andtrading sick anddead birds

Handling and trading sick and dead birds remains commonpractice in the markets, even after intervention.

Post-intervention informants were more spontaneous inresponding about practices related to sick and dead poultry thanthe pre-intervention informants.

Similar hadling practices were identified during pre- and post-intervention assessment: sick poultry were slaughtered and sold,while dead poultry were discarded in the markets.

No special housing arrangement were observed for keeping sickpoultry separate from healthy birds in either shops or marketsbefore or after the intervention.

Five informants did report separating sick poultry from healthpoultry, while four informants reported keeping sick and healthypoultry together.

During both pre- and post-intervention assessments, owners ofboth backyard and broiler poultry reported attempting to sell sickpoultry quickly even at a reduced price or consuming the affectedbirds.

A common perception found among informants is that sick poultrycan be consumed after cooking, since heat will destroy anyharmful substance (including bird flu).

Ten informants reported disposing of carcasses in the offal disposaldrum to sell later along with offal to fish farmers and twoinformants reported disposing carcass in the common open marketwaste disposal area.

Most of the informants reported disposing of poultry carcasseswith their bare hands. Only one informant reported washing hishands with soap and water after disposing of dead poultry.

Five informants reported hearing messages on trading or disposingsick or dead birds and four of them related the messages with birdflu.

Change in bird fluawareness afterintervention

The intervention had a positive impact on the awareness of birdflu among the poultry market workers.

All the informants reported hearing about bird flu afterintervention. Along with other sources, informants mentionedintervention as a source of information.




After intervention, the team received at least one responsereferring to most of the recommended preventive measures forbird flu, except not touching sick and dead birds or their offal,blood or excreta with bare hands.

The research team found informants to be less defensive aboutresponding to queries on bird flu after the intervention.

None of the informants mentioned bird flu as a disease that was overand would not come back or that bird flu infected poultry nevercame to their shop or market. This is in contrast to nine informantsproviding such answers during the pre-intervention assessment

Customers’perspective

Customers are sensitive to the lack of hygienic conditions in themarkets and the potential for disease transmission.

Qualities that customers prioritized for selecting particular shopsto purchase poultry from included: reliable/known shop owner;getting preferential treatment or free slaughtering/processingservices; reasonable price (for backyard) or correct weighing (forbroiler/layer), availability of fresh and healthy birds, andcleanliness of the shop.

Customers expressed concern regarding the possibility of meatgetting dirty while processing.

Customers mentioned that mixing of blood from multiple birds inthe processing place or flapping drum and reusing the ‘dirty’ waterin dressing machine for multiple birds could transmit disease fromsick poultry. They also expressed their disgust for foul smell in themarkets.

Customers mentioned the lack of proper water supply as a barrierfor the implementation of hygienic practices.

They mentioned that if there were guidelines or any publiclyposted instructions, then the customers could also enquire or raisecomplaints against breech of any standard practice; otherwise theshop owners or workers would not listen to the customers.

Feedback on thecommunicationintervention

A few informants reported positive changes after the intervention,such as improvement in the overall cleanliness of the market orworkers and employers’ instructing workers to wash hands withwater or detergent frequently.

Others mentioned barriers to perform recommended practices.These included:

Washing bamboo baskets is not possible because it will bedirtier if washed

Following the recommended bio-security and preventivehealth practices depended on shop owners’ endorsement

The lack of running water and drainage to maintainingcleanliness and hygienic behaviors




Conclusions

There was no significant change in the proportion of self-reported or observed use ofbiosecurity and preventive health measures by the poultry workers before and afterthe intervention despite improved knowledge level.

The intervention improved knowledge of avian influenza, as well as awareness onavian influenza preventive measures and hygienic practices, particularly inperceiving cleanliness as a key measure to prevent avian influenza. Despite thisincreased knowledge and awareness, the intervention did not bring any substantialchange in practices. Lack of proper infrastructure to adopt the recommendations,concern for negative financial impact and most importantly lack of self-riskperception are the major barriers for bringing positive changes in practice.

Recommendations from quantitative findings

There is need to further improve knowledge on the transmission, prevention and riskperception related to avian influenza among the poultry workers and the marketassociation members.

Framing information or messages around disease severity and self-risk perception couldbe effective in improving knowledge on avian influenza among the poultry workers.

Framing information in terms of potential financial loss of poultry or financial lossrelated to human illness (eg: loss of earning days when sick) could be effective inmotivating shop owners and workers in adopting the preventive and bio-securitymeasures recommended for live bird markets.

Forming separate poultry workers association in each live bird market who to helpin promoting and motivating workers in adopting preventive and bio-securitymeasures appropriate for the context of the local markets.

Careful evaluation and interpretation of the qualitative findings to revise and/ordesign interventions addressing the barriers identified by the poultry workers.

The informants did report that the content showed in thedocudrama did not match their own working conditions or realityand therefore, the recommendations did not apply to them.

Informants mentioned that they did not find any difference in thecleaning process showed in the docudrama and their regularcleaning practices. They reported that they clean their shop in thesame manner, however, in reporting that, they skipped or did notrecognize the frequency (such as ‘daily’) or material (such as using‘detergent’) mentioned in the recommended cleaning practices.

Some were unwilling to follow the recommendations and mentionedthat they did not learn anything new from the intervention. Theyreporting knowing and following all the recommendations evenbefore the intervention was rolled-out. However, observations ofbehavior did not match with this statement.




Shop owners should also be motivated to provide the necessary materials (such assoap, gloves, masks and aprons) needed to practice the recommended preventivehealth behaviours.

Recommendation from qualitative findings

The intervention can be designed considering poultry workers’ reality that links thecontrol measures, which are mainly maintaining cleanliness and hygiene, with theirinterest and concerns, rather than prevention of bird flu is likely to be more acceptable.

Customers expressed their concern regarding cleanliness of the shop or market and mostimportantly, for fresh, clean and disease-free healthy meat. The market workers’ concernrelates to possible financial losses and their interest in attracting customers is related totheir financial concerns. The motivation for these two groups could be bridged byencouraging customers to buy poultry from clean shop and workers to maintaincleanliness to attract customers and prevent loss in their business. This bridging can actas a strong motivation for both groups to promote cleanliness and hygiene in the markets.

At shop level, substantial improvements in physical structure is required, which includesconverting mud or broken cemented floors to washable floor, placing washing stationswith taps to ensure supply of running water and connecting or repairing the plumbingsystem to ensure functional drainage of liquid waste in every shop.

At market level, there should be a single common space for slaughtering and processingof birds in a market instead of multiple smaller common slaughtering areas. This centralarrangement should have washable floor, functional water taps and drains, as well asspecific waste disposal dustbins.

For bringing immediate change to the current situation, short-term interventions can bedeveloped focusing on the most important route of bird flu transmission, i.e., contactwith blood, raw meat and offal through slaughtering and processing activity. Suchintervention should emphasize avoiding contact with blood, raw meat and offal and linkit with cleanliness, hygiene and health. To reduce soiling and contamination throughblood, raw meat and offal, several compact low-cost work station could be placed in thepoultry market for slaughtering and processing birds. This workstation should includehandwashing facilities, such as tap and liquid disposal tube, and a wide worktop to carry-out processing activities in standing position and finally should be connected to themarket’s functional drainage system.

Since workers’ or slaughterers’ accessibility to and use of these agents depend largely onshop owners’ discretion, shop owners should be motivated to inspire workers andslaughterers to use these agents to maintain cleanliness.

To facilitate the intervention, there can be an active committee in the market toimplement and monitor the intervention. This committee should be exclusivelycomposed of poultry shop owners and workers, who will be accountable for thecleanliness and hygiene conditions of the market as well as infrastructural maintenance.

There should also be an authority or central monitoring system to guide, monitor andreport the cleanliness and hygiene condition of all the markets of the city to which thispoultry market committee will be accountable.

DLS should consider certifying markets meeting approved cleanliness and hygenestandards




There needs to be a careful evaluation of the PPE provided to the various workers withinthe market, to ensure that the optimal equipment, appropriate for their context andminimizing hindrance of their daily tasks is procured.

Recommendation for revising behavior change communication materials:

Difference in structure and practices for backyard and broiler shop should beincorporated in all intervention materials (docudrama, folksong, poster, banners andleaflets) to avoid the confusion among the two groups that a particular message is forthe ‘other’ group and not for them.

The poultry workers are not likely to follow the recommendations unless they seetheir own shop in the session. The shops and materials used in the docudrama shouldmatch the poultry workers’ reality and context so that they realize that the messagesare targeted for them and internalize that those are doable. For example, if they havecemented floor and do not have tile floor, the drama should show how they canwash the cemented floor.

The script of docudrama or folksong should avoid using terms like ‘farm’ chicken toavoid confusion among the audience that the intervention refers only to broiler chickens.

The key message, such as risk of touching blood, raw meat and offal, should berepeated over and over throughout the script of all intervention materials(docudrama, folksong, poster, banners and leaflets) to ensure instilling the concept inthe mind of the audience.

The frequency (such as ‘daily’), materials (such as ‘hot water’, ‘soap’ and ‘detergent’)and method (such as washing or sweeping, instead of cleaning) for each measureshould be explicitly emphasized in all intervention materials (docudrama, folksong,poster, banners and leaflets).

Destocking should be emphasized and explained in communicable language in themessages for promoting weekly market closure day so that the audience has a clearunderstanding of the issue, both its purpose and its benefit.

In all intervention materials (docudrama, folksong, poster, banners and leaflets),message on separating birds should clarify whether to separate chickens and ducksor all different breeds/species with explanation for separating and its benefit.

Recommendation for planning dissemination sessions:

Repeated sessions should be held monthly or bimonthly round the year through themarket committee.

Preconsultation with targeted audience should be planned so as to determine themost convenient timing for the dissemination sessions.

Intervention organizers should invite the participants beforehand so that they can beinformed of the session and the timing and plan accordingly.

Sessions should be held at a convenient time for the poultry workers, avoidingperiods where markets are busiest with customers.

Shop owners should be motivated to encourage their workers to attend theintervention sessions.




BACKGROUND

The Government of Bangladesh, Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research(IEDCR) and the Department of Livestock Service (DLS) in partnership with the UnitedNation's Children Fund (UNICEF), the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and theWorld Health Organization (WHO) haspiloted a behavior change communicationintervention in the live bird markets (LBMs) for 3 months/12 weeks from September 2012 toJanuary, 2013 to increase the threat perception level and practice of the poultry handlers inorder to reduce the introduction of Avian Influenza (AI) virus in the markets, preventcirculation of the virus in poultry stock and contribute towards reducing the risk of poultryhandlers contracting AI infection.

The intervention-Engaging poultry handlers and market association members on improvingbio-security in Live Bird markets

The communication activities were limited to the issues related to prevention and control ofAI with extensive use of techniques such as group communication aids and inter-personalcommunication. The communication activities were conducted by the Department of MassCommunication (under Ministry of Information) along with the Livestock Officers/VeterinaryStaff from the Department of Livestock Services. Half-day weekly sessions with the poultryhandlers, vendors, slaughterers and workers, focused on the improvement of biosecuritypractices and human risk associated with H5N1 were rolled out in each market. The sessionsincluded film shows or folk song shows, dialogue around bio-security measures andpreventive health behaviours (Table 1); and IEC materials (festoons and leaflets) distribution.

Table 1: Recommended bio-security and preventive health measures

The communication initiative was supported by monthly sensitization and advocacysessions with the market association heads, members and workers in each market. Theirsupport was sought in identifying the appropriate placement of the IEC materials in themarkets and their maintenance; and in regular monitoring of communication activities. Atotal of 8 film show sessions and 4 folk song sessions and 3 monthly sensitization meetingswere held in each market. Before starting the communication activities in the markets, one

Bio-security measures Preventive health

Do not trade, give away or eat sickor dead birds

Keep chickens and ducks in theseparate baskets/pens

Dispose offal and waste in specificdustbins daily.

Clean cages and shop area withdetergent and water daily

Support weekly closure of the LBMfor destocking, and thoroughcleaning and disinfection

Do not touch sick or dead bird with barehands as it can increase the risk ofcontracting AI infection

Do not touch offal , blood and excreta ofsick/dead bird with bare hands as it canincrease the risk of contracting AI infection

All slaughters/Processors should wear gloves,masks, aprons while slaughtering andprocessing birds.

Wash hands with soap after slaughtering,processing every batch of poultry anddisposing offal and waste material




half day advocacy session was held with the market association heads of all markets to briefthem on the initiative and consensus building. Later two advocacy sessions were held withthe market association members: one in October to inform challenges and sharingexperiences and the other in November to collect feedback on the over-all initiative andfuture steps to ensure bio-security in the markets. The detailed contents of all 12 sessions aregiven in table 2.

Table 2: Detailed contents of the sessions in each market

Identifier Type of Show Session content

Show 1 Film Shows Over-view of the situation

All nine behaviours and their impact on livelihood andpersonal health

Show 2 Film Shows Over-view of the situation

All nine behaviours and their impact on livelihood andpersonal health

Demonstration

Wearing of gloves and masks at critical times-Safepoultry handling and slaughtering

Cleaning and disinfection of shops and dustbins

Safe disposal of offal and waste

Show 3 Folk Song Discussion focus on animal health behaviour

All 5 animal health behaviour and their impact on health ofpoultry and livelihood

Show 4 Film Show Discussion focus on personal protection

All 4 risk and health behaviours; and their impact onhuman health

Demonstration

Five steps of hand-washing

Wearing of gloves and masks at critical times

Show 5 Film show Discussion focus on safe poultry handling and slaughtering;and their impact on human health

Demonstration

Wearing of gloves and masks at critical times (safe disposaland slaughtering)

Show 6 Folk Song Discussion focus on human health behaviour

All 4 risk and health behaviours; and their impact onhuman health




Monitoring of the intervention sessions:

The intervention sessions were also monitored by the Department of Mass Communication(DMC). icddr,b provided technical assistance to develop the tools for monitoring of theintervention imparted by the DMC (Annexure 8). A total of 300 checklists for the sessionsand 130 post-session assessments were planned for the monitoring. icddr,b compiled datacollected by DMC and prepared a summary report on the monitoring (see separate report).

Objectives of the intervention evaluation

To assess the change achieved by the BCC intervention in knowledge, attitude/riskperception and behavior related to AI prevention and control among poultryworkers (poultry sellers, handlers, slaughterers and processors) in selected LBMs

Identifier Type of Show Session content

Show 7 Film Show Discussion on 5 animal health behaviours

Demonstration on Safe disposal of offal and waste

Show 8 Film Show Discussion on cleaning and disinfection

Demonstration on cleaning and disinfection

Show 9 Folk Song Discussion focus on animal health behaviour

All 5 animal health behaviour and their impact on health ofpoultry and livelihood

Show 10 Film Show Discussion on handwashing

Demonstration on Five steps of Hand-washing

Show 11 Film Show Over-view of all nine behaviours and their impact onlivelihood and personal health

Reflection and commitment to change in practices

Show 12 Folk Song Discussion focus on human health behaviour

All 4 risk and health behaviours; and their impact on humanhealth

Advocacy sessions with Market Association heads and members:

Half daymeetingafter EID

All marketassociationheads meeting

Briefing on the initiative and consensus building

Sharing of the activity plan

Support for display and activities

October MarketAssociationmembers

Implementation bio-security and personal behaviours(challenges and experience sharing)

November Meeting Collect feedback on the over-all initiative and future stepsto ensure bio-security in the markets




To explore factors (motivators and barriers) that can be attributed to change or nochange achieved by the intervention in key behaviours (the feasibility of behaviours,the communication initiative design, messages and communication materials)

Outcomes/Expected outputs of the Phase-1 C4D intervention

Knowledge and behaviour change achieved with the following expectations:

1. Increase in knowledge by at least 30% points over the pre-assessment studyfindings for 9 behaviours: Poultry handlers in the Live Bird Markets of Dhaka Cityhave at least 30% improvement in the knowledge of at least 2 key bio-security andpreventive health behaviours compared to their knowledge before the intervention.

2. Increase in attitudinal change (proxy indicator) by 10% for those who know aboutthese key behavioural issues. Proxy indicators will be availability of soap, gloves andmasks at the shops.

3. Increase in practices by 5% of those who know. At least 5% of the poultry handlersin the Live Bird Markets of Dhaka City apply the knowledge gained throughcommunication for development activities and commit to key bio-security measuresand protective behaviours

This report presents a) the findings on the impact of the BCC intervention on the knowledge,attitude/risk perception and behavior related to AI based on comparative analysis of pre andpost-intervention assessments poultry workers of the LBMs, b) lessons learnt from “Phase-1”and gaps in the communication initiative and c) recommendations for scaling up (phase 2 ofthe initiative).

METHODOLOGY

The communication intervention was piloted in 15 LBMs in Dhaka, one in Gazipur and ninemodel markets of FAO in nine districts. However, the data collection for evaluation of theinitiative was limited to 16 LBMs of Dhaka and Gazipur following the quantitative andqualitative methods described below.

Study sites

The 16 live bird markets were: 1) Kochukhet Cantonment Market, 2) Khilgaon CityCorporation Market, 3) Mirpur section 6 Market, 4) Mohammadpur Krishi Market 5)Nababgonj Market, 6) Khilkhet Market, 7) New Society Market Mirpur-11, 8) RayerbazarCity Corporation Market, 9) Dhupkhola City Corporation Market, 10) Doyaganj Market, 11)Gulshan-2 Market, 12) Kellar Mor Shomobay Market, 13) Jatrabari (West) Wholesale Market,14) Hatirpul City Corporation Market, 15) Palashi Market and 16) Gazipur Sadar Market.

Study population

Primary stakeholders: Poultry worker (handlers, slaughters or processors)

Secondary stakeholder: Market association heads, members and workers




Quantitative Methods

Selection of poultry workers:

Field team prepared a line list of all workers in the selected 16 live bird markets before thepre-intervention assessment. icddr,b estimated requiring a total sample size of 130participants for each of pre and post-intervention assessments, assuming a 30% absoluteincrease in knowledge on modes on transmission (based on lowest proportion from theprevious KAP study in 2007 and 2010) [18, 19] after the communication initiative andaccounting for a clustering effect of 2 at the market level (Table 3). icddr,b then calculatedthe sample size for poultry workers in each individual market, keeping it proportionate to thetotal number of workers in the market obtained from the line list. icddr,b randomly selectedworkers from the list each time during pre and post-intervention assessment and approachedthem for informed consent and enrollment. If any worker refused to participate or was absenton the days of enrollment or if another worker from the same poultry shop was alreadyenrolled, icddr,b approached the next available worker on the market line list. Some of thepoultry workers enrolled in the pre-assessment may have been included in the post-assessment due to separate randomization at these two different times.

Table 3: Assumptions for sample size calculation

* Lowest proportion from the previous KAP studies in 2007 & 2010

Selection of market association members:

The field team prepared a list of market association members for each market before the pre-intervention assessment. On the day of data collection during pre and post-interventionassessments, the field team conveniently enrolled one available and consenting memberfrom each market. The market association members for the two assessments were selecteddifferently as they were chosen based on availability and willingness to participate.

Data collection:

icddr,b collected data for pre-intervention assessment during October 2012 and the data forpost-intervention assessment were collected during January 2013. Summary of sample size,data collection methods and tools are given in table 4.

Knowledge on modes of transmission

ProportionBEFOREintervention*

ProportionAFTERintervention

Samplesize with90%power

Samplesize with95%power

Contact with infected poultry 33% 63% 53 64

Contact with contaminatedenvironment

28% 58% 52 63

Contact with infected poultry feces 7% 37% 38 45

Contact with humans infected with AI 7% 37% 38 45




Table 4: Sample size, data collection methods and tools for the quantitative method

* Poultry workers were randomly selected in pre and post-assessments.

Structured observation:

The field team collected data using a standardized bio-security assessment tool (Appendix 1).The tool was designed to record observations on poultry handling practices during high-riskbehaviors such as slaughtering, defeathering and evisceration. icddr,b recorded the type ofactivity (i.e., slaughtering, manual defeathering, defeathering by machine and evisceration);place of activity; type of poultry; number of poultry handled in each batch; whether anyprotective measure was taken during the activity including mask, gloves, apron or boot;disposal of waste or offal and protective measure taken during disposal; whether hands werewashed after the activity, place of hand washing, availability of soap at the place of handwashing, hand washing material and whether all the key steps1 in hand washing wereobserved by the poultry workers. The field team sat at a convenient place in the markets tobe able to observe different activities and to observe both manual defeathering anddefeathering by machine. The structured observations were conducted for three hours duringthe busiest trading hours in the morning (9 AM–12 PM) to maximize the opportunity forobserving activities of interest.

Structured interview:

The field team conducted face-to-face interview with poultry workers using a structuredquestionnaire (Appendix 2). As avian influenza is commonly known as ‘bird flu’ to thepoultry workers icddr,b used ‘bird flu’ in our questionnaire. The data was also collected ondemographics; poultry exposure/work activity; knowledge on transmission and prevention ofavian influenza; risk perceptions related to avian influenza; practice of preventive healthmeasures and bio-security measures; and sources of information.

Data analysis:

In line with the expected outcomes of the intervention as defined by UNICEF, icddr,bcompared proportion of workers with knowledge of at least 2 recommended bio-security andpreventive health measures before and after the intervention. To assess attitudinal change,icddr,b compared proportion of proxy indicators, that is, availability of soap, gloves andmasks at the shops among the workers who knew at least 2 recommended bio-security andpreventive health measures before and after the intervention. To assess changes in practices,

Assessment Sample size Data collection method Data collection tool

Pre-intervention

Poultry worker: 130

Market associationmember: 15

- Structured observation(3 hr)

- Face-to-face interview

- Standardized bio-securityassessment tool

- Structured questionnaire

Post-intervention

Poultry worker: 130

Market associationmember: 16

- Structured observation(3 hr)

- Face-to-face interview

- Standardized bio-securityassessment tool

- Structured questionnaire

1 Wet both hands with water, rub in-between fingers of both hands, rub palm of both hands, rinse off soap from both hands with runningwater, dry both hands using clean gamchha (traditional towel)/towel




icddr,b compared proportion of workers self-reporting the recommended behaviours beforeand after the intervention. icddr,b also compared the observed practices through structuredobservations before and after the intervention to corroborate the self-reported practice of thepoultry workers. icddr,b performed test of equality of proportion to compare knowledge,attitude and practices before and after the intervention.

Qualitative Methods

Data collection

A qualitative research team collected data for pre-intervention assessment in August andOctober 2012 and for post-intervention assessment from January through March 2013 usingspot observations, in-depth interviews, group discussions and observations (detailed). Theyalso used exit interviews during post-intervention assessment. The team conducted spotobservations and exit interviews in 10 markets and indepth interviews, group discussionsand detailed observations in four selected markets. icddr,b selected four largest markets fromthe 10 live bird markets purposively; two markets owned by City Corporation and twomarkets under private or cooperative ownership. Customers who were observed to purchasepoultry from the live bird market were approached for exit interviews and those who had anexperience of purchasing poultry since before intervention and consented for an interviewwere selected. For indepth interviews, the team excluded the respondents of both pre andpost quantitative assessment. They selected eight same informants who were indepthinterviewed during pre-intervention and eight new informants who were not previouslyincluded in any assessment by quantitative or qualitative team.

Spot observation and exit interview in 10 markets:

During both pre and post intervention assessment, the team conducted one spot observationin each of the 10 markets to understand the infrastructure of the markets and change in theinfrastructure due to intervention. Through this tool, the team collected data on the locationand condition of the poultry keeping, selling and slaughtering points, waste disposal placesand location and condition of the communication materials distributed during intervention.

During post intervention assessment, the team conducted two exit interviews with customersin each of the 10 markets to explore customers’ perspective on the biosecurity condition ofthe markets, factors affecting their choice of selecting shops to purchase live birds and impactof the intervention.

In-depth interview, group discussion and detailed observation in four markets:

Below is table that includes frequencies of in-depth interviews and group discussions andduration of detailed observations.




Table 5: Data collection using in-depth interview, group discussion and detailedobservation

* Members of market association refused to sit for the discussion

Through in-depth interviews with poultry shop owners and slaughterers/workers, the teamcollected information on their everyday experience of poultry keeping, selling, slaughteringand handling birds, disinfection and cleaning of shop area and slaughtering places, marketclosure, personal hygiene and waste disposal. They also explored avian influenza and itsroute of transmission to humans, source of information, everyday preventive messages andmeasures they follow and the barriers/context and motivation in implementing andmaintaining the measures. Through group discussions with market association members, theteam explored if they were familiar with the biosecurity and preventive messages, theirsource of information, their role in disseminating or maintaining these measures in thepoultry market and motivating the poultry handlers in AI prevention and control, whetherthey are instructed by any authority and the details about market closure, cleaning,disinfection, destocking and market waste management. After intervention, the team alsoexplored the changes in knowledge of the biosecurity and preventive messages, theirfeedback on the intervention, what measures they considered to be implementable/feasibleor not implementable and why, and the barriers/context and motivation in implementing andmaintaining the measures through indepth interviews and group discussions.

During detailed observations, the team recorded the type and frequency of contact withbirds, offal, blood, feces and waste and personal protective measure and hygiene practicesduring poultry keeping, selling, slaughtering and handling of birds in the shops andslaughtering places. They also observed cleaning, disinfection and waste disposal practicesof the shop area and market during daily routine cleaning and weekly market closure day.After intervention, the team additionally observed the change in practices relating to thebiosecurity and preventive messages.

Tools Pre-Assessment Post assessment Total

In-depth interview (persons)

Shop owner (backyard poultry) 4 4 8

Shop owner (broiler/layer) 4 4 8

Slaughterer (backyard poultry) 4 4 8

Slaughterer /Worker (broiler/layer) 4 4 8

Total 16 16 32Group discussion (with market associationmembers) *

3 2 5

Observation (minutes)

Broiler/layer shop 300 300 600

Backyard poultry shop 300 300 600

Slaughtering place (broiler/layer) 300 300 600

Slaughtering place (backyard poultry) 300 300 600

Market and shop cleaning activities 1107 830 1937

Total 2307 2030 4337




Changes in qualitative methods:

Although in the original proposal, 16 spot observations and four group discussions wereplanned, during data collection certain adjustments were made in the qualitative samplesize, in response to the actual field situation. After having performed ten spot observations,the icddr,b qualitative research team recognized that the data was sufficiently saturatedwithin ten markets and there was marginal benefit in performing further spot observations.As there was little flexibility on wrapping up field activity due to the approaching Eidholiday, icddr,b research team decided to limit the qualitative spot observation to ten.icddr,b conducted three group discussions during pre-intervention assessment and twogroup discussions during post-intervention assessment instead of four because the membersof the rest targeted markets refused to participate. In qualitative research, it is common forsuch modifications to take place, based on data saturation and the field situation.

Operational definition:

In the qualitative component of the report, the following terms have been used:

For primary stakeholders;

Shop owner (person who owns the poultry shop and also participates in poultryselling and/or slaughtering activities),

Worker (person who is a hired employee in the poultry shop and whose main dutyis to assist the owner in selling and carrying out slaughtering and cleaning activities)and

Slaughterer (person who only carries out slaughtering activities).

The term ‘backyard’ poultry includes indigenous chickens, fayoumi, cocks, ducks, geeseand pigeons.

Data analysis:

The research team reviewed the transcription of interviews, group discussion andobservation notes to identify the emerging themes. After finalizing the themes andsubthemes, the team arranged data according to the themes and analyzed data to prepare asummary of each theme/subtheme. Later on, the comparison and triangulation were madeamong different tools and findings and compared findings of pre- and post-intervention.

Ethical issues

All participants provided written informed consent for enrollment into pre and post-intervention assessments.




Quantitative assessment

Findings




Demographic characteristics:

130 poultry workers were interviewed during pre and post-intervention assessments. 129(99%) workers during pre-intervention assessment and 130 (100%) workers during post-intervention assessment were male. Median age of workers in pre-intervention assessmentwas 24.5 years (interquartile range, IQR 19–33 years) while median age of workers in post-intervention assessment was 28 years (IQR 19–33 years). Median years of completedschooling for workers in the pre-intervention assessment was 4 (IQR 0–6.25 years) and forworkers in the post-intervention assessment was 4.5 (IQR 0–12 years).

15 market association members were interviewed during the pre-intervention assessment,one from 15 markets. 16 members were interviewed during the post-interventionassessment, one member from each of the 16 markets. Median age of members in pre-intervention assessment was 52 years (IQR 42–62 years) and median age of members in post-intervention assessment was 53.5 (IQR 46.5–59 years). Median years of completedschooling was 8 (IQR 5–12 years) and 8.5 (IQR 5–10.5 years) for market associationmembers in pre and post-intervention assessments respectively.

Detailed demographic characteristics are given in table 6.

Table 6: Demographic characteristics of poultry workers and market association membersduring pre and post-intervention assessment times

Exposure of poultry workers to poultry at the market:

Median duration of work with poultry was 7 years (IQR 3–12 years) for workers in the pre-intervention assessment while for workers in post-intervention assessment, median durationof work with poultry was 5.5 years (IQR 1.5–14 years). Mean hours of daily work withpoultry was 12.34 (range 3–18 hours) and 12.14 (range 1–24 hours) for workers in the preand post-intervention assessment respectively. The majority of the workers (91.5%) wereinvolved with selling poultry in both assessments (Table 7).

Characteristics

Poultry worker Market association member

Pre-intervention

Post-intervention

Pre-intervention

Post-intervention

N= 130 N= 130 N=15 N=16

Median age in years (IQR) 24.50 (19–33) 28 (22–40) 52 (42–62) 53.5 (46.5–59)

Male, n (%) 129 (99) 130 (100) 15 (100) 16 (100)

Median years of completedschooling (IQR)

No education, n (%)

SSC, n (%)

4 (0–6.25)

38 (29)

8 (6.2)

4.5 (0–12)

38 (29.23)

10 (7.69)

8 (5–12)

2 (13.3)

1 (13.3)

8.5 (5–10.5)

0 (6.25)

3 (18.75)




Table 7: Poultry worker’s exposure to poultry in the 16 live bird markets surveyed,Bangladesh

*Multiple responses. Percentages do not sum up to 100.

Only two market association members during both pre-intervention and post-interventionassessments were involved with poultry trade.

Knowledge on avian influenza:

A higher proportion of poultry workers heard about avian influenza after the interventioncompared to before the intervention (79% [103/130] at pre-intervention assessment versus99% [129/130] at post-intervention assessment, p<.001) (Figure 1). This is a 20% absoluteincrease at post-intervention time compared to pre-intervention time.

On the other hand, a lower proportion of market association members heard about avianinfluenza after the intervention compared to before the intervention (93% [14/15] at pre-intervention assessment versus 88% [14/16] at post-intervention assessment versus), but thiswas not statistically significant (p=0.583) (Figure 1).

Exposure to poultryPoultry worker (N= 130), n (%

Pre-intervention Post-intervention

Type of poultry handled*

Broiler

Cock

Indigenous chicken

Layer

Duck

Pigeon

Quail

81 (62.3)

61 (47)

56 (43.1)

16 (12.3)

13 (10.0)

9 (6.9)

1 (0.8)

78 (60)

54 (41.54)

64 (49.23)

8 (6.15)

16 (12.3)

7 (5.38)

2 (1.54)

Tasks performed with poultry*

Sell poultry

Slaughter poultry

Defeather poultry

Eviscerate poultry

Feed poultry

Clean feeding tray

Clean water container

Clean feces

Transport poultry

Collect or transport feces

119 (91.5)

92 (70.8)

86 (66.2)

84 (64.6)

82 (63.1)

80 (61.5)

80 (61.5)

75 (57.7)

36 (27.7)

26 (20.0)

119 (91.5)

80 (61.5)

67 (51.54)

68 (52.31)

86 (66.2)

78 (60)

78 (60)

71 (54.62)

83 (63.85)

51 (39.23)




Figure 1: Proportion of poultry workers and market association members heard about avianinfluenza during pre and post-intervention assessments

Among participants who heard about avian influenza, 67% (86/129) of poultry workers and64% (9/14) of market association members reported film show or folk song show as theirsources of information in post-intervention assessment. However, television was the singlemost common source of information for both poultry workers (67%) and market associationmembers (93%) after the intervention. Overall, a higher proportion of poultry workers (54%[56/103] before versus 70% [90/129] after, p=0.016) and market association members (86%[12/14] before versus 93% [13/14] after, p=0.541) reported one or more type of mass mediaas sources of information during post-intervention assessment compared to pre-interventionassessment. Detailed sources of information are mentioned in Table 8.

Poultry workers Market association members

Perc

enta

ge

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 1. Proportion of poultry workers and market association members heard about avian influenza during pre and post-intervention assessments

99%

79%

88%93%

Pre-intervention assessment Post-intervention assessment

Heard about avian influenza




Table 8: Sources of information on avian influenza among poultry workers and marketassociation members during pre and post intervention time

*Multiple responses. Percentages do not sum up to 100.

**Not applicable

Sources of information

Poultry worker Market association member

Pre-intervention

Post-intervention

Pre-intervention

Post-intervention

N=103, n (%) N=129, n (%) N=14, n (%) N=14, n (%)

From where have youheard about avianinfluenza?*

Film show at the market

Folks song show at themarket

At the market

Television

Newspaper

Veterinary worker

Relatives

Neighbour/friend

Radio

Other:

City corporation

Customers

Banner/leaflet/announcem-ent in mike

icddr,b

Farm

Wholesaler

NGO

Public

Shop keeper

Government

Livestock officer

N/A**

N/A**

61 (59)

51 (50)

26 (25)

9 (9)

7 (7)

6 (6)

6 (6)

10 (10)

6 (6)

N/A**

-

2 (2)

2 (2)

1 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)

-

-

85 (66)

29 (22)

58 (45)

86 (67)

26 (20)

28 (22)

4 (3)

18 (14)

4 (3)

20 (16)

9 (7)

2 (2)

3 (2)

3 (2)

1 (1)

-

-

-

-

-

1 (1)

N/A

N/A

3 (21)

12 (86)

8 (57)

1 (7)

1 (7)

3 (21)

2 (14)

-

-

N/A**

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 (7)

-

8 (57)

4 (29)

4 (29)

13 (93)

8 (57)

2 (14)

1 (7)

3 (21)

2 (14)

3 (21)

1 (7)

-

-

-

1 (7)

-

-

-

-

1 (7)

-




Knowledge on recommended bio-security and preventive health measuresamong participants aware of avian influenza:

Among study participants who had heard of avian influenza, a higher proportion of poultryworkers knew at least two out of the nine recommended bio-security measures after theintervention (18%) compared to before the intervention (12%) (Table 9). This is a 6%absolute increase that is below the targeted level and not statistically significant. A lowerproportion of market association members knew at least two of the nine recommendedbehaviours after the intervention (7%) compared to before the intervention (29%).

Among the five recommended bio-security measures, only one measure (not to trade, giveaway or eat sick or dead birds) was mentioned by the poultry workers. None mentionedkeeping chickens and ducks separately or disposal of offal and waste in specific dustbinsdaily or weekly market closure both before and after the intervention. Few mentioned aboutcleaning shop in general but none mentioned about cleaning cages and shops with detergentand water daily.

Details of knowledge on the recommended bio-security and preventive health measures aregiven in table 9.




Table 9: Knowledge on recommended bio-security and preventive health measuresamong poultry workers and market association members who were aware ofavian influenza

*Questionnaire did not specify bare hands though.

**Only one bio-security measure mentioned by the workers.

Knowledge

Poultry worker Market association memberPre-intervention

Post-intervention

p-value

Pre-intervention

Post-intervention

p-valueN=103,

n (%)N=129,

n (%)N=14, n (%)

N=14, n (%)

Do not trade, giveaway or eat sick ordead birds

9 (9) 9 (7) 0.618 3 (21) 0 (0) 0.07

Keep chickens andducks in the separatebaskets/pens

0 (0) 0 (0) - 0 (0) 0 (0) -

Dispose offal andwaste in specificdustbins daily.

0 (0) 0 (0) - 0 (0) 0 (0) -

Clean cages and shoparea with detergentand water daily

0 (0) 0 (0) - 0 (0) 0 (0) -

Support weeklyclosure of the LBM

0 (0) 0 (0) - 0 (0) 0 (0) -

Do not touch sick ordead bird with barehands*

15 (15) 16 (12) 0.631 4 (29) 0 (0) 0.03

Do not touch offal ,blood and excreta ofsick/dead bird withbare hands*

9 (9) 11 (9) 0.955 4 (29) 1 (7) 0.14

All slaughters/Processors shouldwear gloves, maskswhile slaughteringand processing birds

3 (3) 11 (9) 0.074 1 (7) 1 (7) 1.00

Wash hands with soapafter slaughtering,processing everybatch of poultry anddisposing offal andwaste material

4 (4) 21 (16) 0.002 1 (7) 1 (7) 1.00

Knew at least 2 of the9 bio-security andpreventive healthmeasures**

12 (12) 19 (18) 0.494 4 (29) 1 (7) 0.14

Knew any 1 of the 9bio-security andpreventive healthmeasures

14 (14) 23 (18) 0.381 1 (7) 1 (7) 1.00





Among the poultry workers who knew at least 2 recommended bio-security/preventivemeasures, there was a 4% absolute increase in reported attitude as indicated by the proxyindicators such as availability of soap, gloves and masks after the intervention compared tobefore the intervention (17% before versus 21% after) (Table 10). This is below the targetedlevel of 10% increase and not statistically significant.

Details of proxy indicators are given in table 10 and figure 2.

Table 10: Proxy indicators of attitude among those who knew at least 2 recommended bio-security/preventive health measures before and after the intervention

Figure 2: Availability of soap, gloves and mask in the shops before and after the intervention

Proxy indicatorsPoultry worker

Pre-intervention Post-interventionp-value

N=12, n (%) N=19, n (%)Had soap in the shop 6 (50) 15 (79) 0.09Had gloves in the shop 2 (17) 4 (21) 0.76Had mask in the shop 5 (42) 8 (42) 0.98Had any one of soap, gloves or mask in theshop

7 (58) 15 (79) 0.22

Had all three (soap, gloves and mask) in theshop

2 (17) 4 (21) 0.76

0% 20% 40%

Percentage

60% 80% 100%

Soap, gloves and mask

Soap or gloves or mask

Soap

gloves

mask

50%

79%

17%

21%

42%

42%

58%5

79%

17%

21%

Figure 2. Availability of soap, gloves and mask in the shops before and after the intervention

After intervention Before intervention





Among the workers who knew at least 2 recommended bio-security/preventive measures,there was a 9% absolute increase in self-reported not keeping different types of poultry in thesame basket/cage and an 18% absolute increase in reported observation of weekly closureof the market after the intervention compared to before the intervention (Table 11). But theseincreases were not statistically significant. None of the workers mentioned that they did notsell sick or dead poultry both before and after the intervention.

Details of self-reported bio-security practices are given in table 11.

Table 11: Self-reported practice of bio-security measures among those who knew at least 2recommended bio-security/preventive measures


Among the workers who knew at least 2 recommended bio-security/preventive measures,there was a 8% absolute increase in reported use of gloves and mask while slaughtering,processing or disposal after the intervention compared to before the intervention (Table 12).This was not statistically significant. None of the workers reported washing hands with soapafter slaughtering, processing or disposal of wastes both before and after the intervention.

During the structured observations, the quantitative research team observed 513 events and503 events related to high risk practices (such as slaughtering, defeathering and evisceration,either alone or in combination) before and after the intervention respectively. Observedpreventive health measures were comparable with self-reported practices and no change wasobserved in the practices after the intervention (Table 12).

Bio-security measuresPoultry worker

Pre-intervention Post-interventionp-value

N=12, n (%) N=19, n (%)Did not sell sick or dead poultry 0 (0) 0 (0) -Did not keep different types of poultry inthe same basket/cage

9 (75) 16 (84) 0.53

Disposed offal and waste in specific dustbindaily

7 (58) 8 (42) 0.38

Cleaned cages and shop area with waterand detergent daily

6 (50) 5 (26) 0.18

Observed weekly closure of the market 6 (50) 13 (68) 0.31




Table 12: Self-reported and observed preventive health measures among those who knewat least 2 recommended bio-security/preventive measures

*NA=Not applicable as this was not specifically asked during the interviews and it was notpossible to identify if a poultry was sick during structured observation.

**Indirectly inferred from the structured observation as none were observed to use glovesduring touching of offal/blood of poultry and did not know if the poultry was sick.

Observed practices during structured observation:

The quantitative research team observed 513 events and 503 events related to high riskpractices (such as slaughtering, defeathering and evisceration, either alone or incombination) before and after the intervention respectively. No protective measures weretaken by the poultry workers during the majority of the observed event before and after theintervention (99.8% versus 99.6%). Offal/wastes were not disposed in a higher proportion ofthe observed events after the intervention compared to before the intervention (3.4%[17/507] before versus 59.8% [301/502] after, p=<0.001). Offal/wastes were disposed of ina designated place or container inside the shop in a lower proportion of observed eventsafter the intervention compared to before the intervention (56.7% before versus 9.4% after,p=<0.001). No protective measures were taken during the majority of the observeddisposal activities both before and after the intervention (98.8% versus 99%). Hands werewashed after a lower proportion of events after the intervention compared to before theintervention (23.4% before versus 17.7% after, p=0.017) (figure 3) and water alone wasused for all the observed hand washing events both before and after the intervention. Themost common place of hand washing was in a bucket/container inside the shop before theintervention and in a designated place inside the shop after the intervention (figure 4). Soapwas not available at the hand washing place for any of the observed hand washing eventsafter the intervention. Detailed practices observed during the structured observations arepresented in table 13.

Preventive healthmeasures

SELF-REPORTED OBSERVEDPre-intervention

Post-intervention

p-value

Pre-intervention

Post-intervention

p-valueN=12,n (%)

N=19, n (%)

N=513, n (%)

N=503,n (%)

Did not touchsick/dead birds withbare hands

NA* NA* - NA* NA* -

Did not touch offal/blood/excreta of sick/dead bird with barehands

NA* NA* - 0 (0)** 0 (0)** -

Wore gloves, maskswhile slaughtering/processing/disposal

1 (8) 3 (16) 0.546 1 (0.2) 2 (0.4) 0.552

Washed hands withsoap after slaughtering/processing/wastedisposal

0 (0) 0 (0) - 0 (0) 0 (0) -




Table 13: Observed preventive health and bio-security measures taken during differenthigh-risk behaviours.

Pre-interventionassessment

Post-interventionassessment

p-value

(N=513), n (%) (N=503), n (%)

Type of exposure

Slaughtering

Slaughtering, manual defeathering &evisceration

Manual defeathering

Slaughtering, defeathering by machine &evisceration

Slaughtering & manual defeathering

Slaughtering & defeathering by machine

Manual defeathering & evisceration

Defeathering by machine & evisceration

Evisceration

Defeathering by machine

Slaughtering, manual & machinedefeathering

Slaughtering, manual & machinedefeathering & evisceration

128 (25)

187 (36.5)

77 (15)

44 (8.6)

33 (6.4)

-

-

20 (3.9)

11 (2.1)

9 (1.8)

4 (0.8)

-

167 (33.2)

35 (7)

143 (28.4)

17 (3.4)

4 (0.8)

2 (0.4)

16 (3.2)

1 (0.2)

63 (12.5)

54 (10.7)

-

1 (0.2)

0.004

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

-

-

0.00

0.00

0.00

-

-

Place of activity

In a designated place inside a shop

In a designated place outside a shop

293 (57.1)

220 (42.9)

403 (80.1)

100 (19.9)

<0.001

<0.001

Type of poultry

Broiler

Indigenous chicken

Cock

Duck

Pigeon

Broiler and duck

Cock and broiler

Cock and indigenous chicken

289 (56.3)

120 (23.4)

85 (16.6)

15 (2.9)

4 (0.8)

-

-

-

285 (56.7)

141 (28.0)

39 (7.8)

28 (5.6)

5 (1.0)

1 (0.2)

1 (0.2)

1 (0.2)

0.92

0.09

<0.001

0.04

0.72

-

-

-




Mean number of poultry handled in eachbatch (range)

5 (1–67) 4 (1–50) <0.001

Protective measures taken during the activity(exposure)

None

Apron

512 (99.8)

1 (0.2)

501 (99.6)

2 (0.4)

0.55

-

Disposal of offal/waste

In a designated place/container/bucketinside the shopIn a designated place/dustbin in themarket

In a designated place/container/bucketoutside the shop

Outside market

Outside shop

Drum outside

Outside open place

Did not eviscerate

(N=490)

278 (56.7)

179 (36.5)

31 (6.3)

2 (0.4)

-

-

-

-

(N=202)

19 (9.4)

23 (11.4)

-

127 (62.9)

20 (9.9)

11 (5.4)

1 (0.5)

1 (0.5)

<0.001

<0.001

-

<0.001

-

-

-

-

Protective measure taken during disposal

None

Apron

(N=490)

489 (98.8)

1 (0.2)

(N=202)

200 (99.0)

2 (1.0)

0.15

-

Washed hands after performing activity

No

Yes

Could not observe

390 (76.0)

120 (23.4)

3 (0.6)

413 (82.1)

89 (17.7)

1 (0.2)

0.02

0.03

0.33

Place of hand washing

In a bucket/container inside the shop

In a designated place inside the shop

In a bucket/container outside the shop

In a designated place in the marketoutside the shop

(N=120)

42 (35)

40 (33)

32 (27)

6 (5)

(N=89)

23 (25.8)

33 (37.1)

28 (31.5)

5 (5.6)

0.16

0.57

0.45

0.84

Soap available at hand washing place

No

Yes

Could not see

(N=120)

95 (79)

2 (2)

23 (19)

(N=89)

89 (100)

-

-

<0.001

-

-Hand washing material used

Water alone

(N=120)

120 (100)

(N=89)

89 (100) -




Figure 3: Observed handwashing of the poultry workers during structured observation,before and after the intervention

Figure 4: Place of handwashing for observed handwashing events during structuredobservation

Yes No Could not observe

Perc

enta

ge

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 3. Observed handwashing of the poultry workers during structured observation, before and after the intervention

0%1%

82%

76%

18%23%

Pre-intervention assessment Post-intervention assessment

Hands washed after performing activities

0% 10% 20%

Percentage

30% 40%

In a designated place in themarket outside the shop

In a backet/containeroutside the shop

In a bucket/containerinside the shop

In a designated placeinside the shop

35%

26%

33%

37%

27%

31%

5%

6%

Figure 4. Place of handwashing for observed handwashing events during structured observation

Post-intervention assessment Pre-intervention assessment

Plac

e o

f han

dw

ash

ing

Qualitative

Findings




Overview of the 10 live bird markets where qualitativeexploration was undertaken

The LBMs commonly sold chickens of different breeds, such as ‘deshi murgi’ (indigenouschickens), ‘pakistani murgi’ (assumed to be fayoumi and/or cock), cock, broiler and layer.Some shops also sold ducks, geese, pigeons and quails along with chickens. The totalnumber of shops remained the same after the intervention as was before the intervention(194 shops before intervention and 193 shops after intervention), however, someinterchanges of shops to common slaughtering places and common slaughtering places toshops took place. During post-intervention data collection, the team also found some shopsfrom pre-intervention closed and some new shops, balancing equality of the total shopnumber before and after intervention. Sixty two percent (120/194) shops had slaughteringarrangement before the intervention compared to 56% (108/193) after the intervention. Onthe other hand, 38% (74/194) of shops only sold birds before the intervention as comparedto 44% (85/193) after the intervention. Duck and geese selling increased; 12 additionalshops sold ducks and geese after the intervention. One additional common slaughteringRimi: Before intervention, this slaughtering place was included with a shop that sold poultry.After intervention, we found it as a common slaughtering place where poultry wereslaughtered from different shops. Since it is a typical slaughtering place and not different thanthe pictures that we included for other slaughtering places, we did not add any picture of thisplace was found after the intervention.

As found before the intervention, floors of the shops and common slaughtering places weremainly cemented, with exceptions of tiled and mud floors in a few shops. However, manycemented and tiled shops had damaged flooring (Figure 9-12).

Figure 09 & 10: Mud flood




More than half of the shops did not have any supply of running water or provision for storingwater both before and after the intervention. Shops, including those that had water sourcepoints, used stored water for bird processing, handwashing and cleaning activities afterintervention, similar to the pre-intervention period. Shops with water source pointsdecreased from 19% (37/194) before the intervention to 16% (30/193) after the intervention,since some of these shops converted to common slaughtering place and some closed. Therewere two types of water source points- one was tap and the other was water channeledthrough tubes from a distant reservoir or motor (Figure 13 & 14). During the post-intervention period, five tube points were replaced by taps in one market (Figure 15). Forcommon slaughtering places, condition of water storage provision deteriorated afterintervention. The number of common slaughtering places that did not have any supply ofrunning water or provision for storing water increased: six of 29 places before interventioncompared to 12 of 30 places after intervention.

As found before intervention, individual shops were not connected to the drainage systemin three of the ten markets after intervention, except some broiler/layer shops. There weremany non-functional drains in the remaining seven markets (Figure 16 & 17). In commonslaughtering places, the drainage system was also found to worsen after intervention. The

FFigure 13: Tap Figure 14: Water channeledthrough tube

Figure 15: Tube replaced by tap

Figure 11: Breakage in tile floor Figure 12: Broken cemented floor of a commonslaughtering place




number of common slaughtering places that had adjacent drains decreased; 18 of 29 placesbefore intervention compared to 15 of 30 after intervention. The number of commonslaughtering places that did not have any liquid disposal facility increased; 11 of 29 placesbefore intervention compared to 15 of 30 after intervention.

The team observed similar condition in the markets after intervention as compared to beforethe intervention, such as feathers and blood drops in the passages, presence of adjacent foodstall, roaming food vendors selling snacks and the presence of scavenging dogs, cats andmouse inside the market area (Figure 18-21). During informal conversation, a few marketworkers also informed the team that they slept inside the shops at night.

Figure 16 & 17: Clogged drains adjacent to shops

Figure 18 - 21: Dog, cat, rat and crow scavenging in the poultry market




Profile of the respondents of post-intervention assessment

All the poultry shop owners, workers and the market association members were male. Ageof the poultry shop owners and workers ranged from 19 to 50 (mean 29 years) and age ofthe market association members ranged from 27 to 52 (mean 40 years). Most (12/16) of thepoultry shop owners and workers had primary or secondary schooling and most (3/4) of themarket association members had secondary or higher education. The majority (11/16) ofshop owners and workers had more than five years of experience in poultry relatedprofession. Mean years of performing as an association member was 11 (ranged from 1 to25).

Among the customers, two-third (13/20) were male. Age of the customers ranged from 25 to60 (mean 42 years). Most (18/20) of the customers had secondary schooling or highereducation. Customers reported a mean of 10 years (ranged six months from 35 years) ofexperience of purchasing poultry from the study markets.

Intervention in the market

The team observed posters disseminated by the intervention team in one to three shops ineach of the five markets (Figure 22-27). In some places posters were torn, became soiled,used for processing purpose or pasted in a place that was isolated or beyond eye level (Figure25-27). In the other five markets, no poster or intervention material was visible. Althoughsome owners and workers mentioned receiving gloves and masks from the interventionteam, they could not show those to the research team.

Figure 22 - 24: Posters hanging in the market




Among the 16 informants, 13 reported attending at least one dissemination sessions of theintervention (Table 14). One informant reported that the intervention team arranged afolksong and a discussion meeting to make up for a film as they were unable to show thefilm due to technical problems. Informants mentioned receiving gloves and masks from theintervention team and also from City Corporation or Livestock Office along with preventivemessages.

Table 14: Reported types and frequencies of dissemination sessions that took place in themarket and were attended by the informants

Figure 25: Poster used forprocessing poultry

Figure 26: Poster hanging aboveeye level

Figure 27: Poster placed in anisolated place

Reported type of sessions disseminated in the marketsNo. of informants

(N=16)

Only docudrama 4

Only folksong 1

Only poster 2

Docudrama and folksong 4

Docudrama and poster 1

Folk song and poster 1

Docudrama, folksong and poster 3

Reported frequency of dissemination sessions taking place in the market

Reported one session 9

Reported two sessions 3

Reported three sessions 2

Reported four sessions 2




Of the eleven informants who attended the docudrama, seven reported partial presence inthe session for 4-5 minutes, three reported presence for 20 minutes or more and one reportedbeing present for the full session. As reasons for not attending the full session, informantsmentioned being busy attending customers, missing part of the show due to leaving themarket, going back to their shop for the fear of reprisal by the employer (shop owner).Among the five who reported not being present in the intervention session, four reportedknowing about the intervention from others workers in the market and one reported seeingthe poster. The reasons given by these informants for not attending the intervention sessionincluded: going back home for lunch, not being invited to attend and being absent from themarket on the day of the intervention activities (either at home village or at home withfamily).

Informants from one market reported being invited prior to the intervention session andinformants from another three markets informed the team that they did not know about theintervention prior to the sessions. Informants from three markets reported the timing of thesessions to be around lunch time or 1-3pm.

Informants used a range of terms to refer to the docudrama, such as ‘television’, ‘screen’,‘publicity’, ‘video’, ‘porda’ (screen), ‘focus’, ‘DVD’ and ‘video chitro’ (video). For the folksong, they used the terms ‘gaan’ (song) and ‘baul gaan’ (folksong).

Informants reported receiving messages on bird flu and/or a number of preventive measuresfrom the intervention (Table 15). Among the 16 informants, 14 mentioned the term ‘bird flu’or related the intervention with cleanliness and control of bird flu while talking about theintervention. The rest two informants related the intervention only with cleanliness.

Reported type and frequency of dissemination sessions attended

Did not attend (saw poster or heard from other workers about docudrama/folksong) 3

Attended one session of docudrama 4

Attended one session of folksong 2

Attended one session of docudrama and one session of folksong 5

Attended two sessions of docudrama 1

Attended three sessions of docudrama and one session of folksong 1




Table 15: Recommended messages disseminated through different method and messagesrecalled by informants*

Messages recalled by informants N=88,n (%)*

Messages informants related to‘bird flu’

N=88,n (%)*

Poster: Do not trade sick or dead birds.

Docudrama and folksong: Do not trade sick poultry.

Do not trade sick birds

Total

2 (2)

2 (2)

Do not trade sick birds 2 (2)

2 (2)Poster: Always keep chickens and ducks in the separate baskets/pens.

Folksong: Keep chickens and ducks in the separate cages to avoid risk of spreading bird flu.

Separate deshi chicken and duck

Separate sick chicken fromhealthy chicken

Total

1 (1)

1 (1)

2 (2)

Separate deshi chicken and duck

Separate sick chicken fromhealthy chicken

1 (1)

1 (1)

2 (2)Poster: Dispose blood, offal and waste of poultry in specific dustbin to control bird flu.

Docudrama: Do not throw offal and remainders of poultry here and there. Dispose offaland remainders in a specific drum or dustbin after slaughtering and processing every timeor each batch of poultry. Dispose wastes of drum or dustbin in a specific place of marketat least once daily.

Folksong: Dispose offal, blood and waste of poultry in specific dustbin and not in anyother place.

Dispose waste in dustbin

Dispose waste in dustbin toprevent spread of disease/germ

Dispose waste in covered bin

Total

2 (2)

1 (1)

1 (1)

4 (4)

Dispose waste in covered bin

Dispose waste in dustbin toprevent spread of disease/germ

1 (1)

1 (1)

2 (2)

Poster: Wash cages and shop area with detergent and water daily.

Docudrama: Use plastic or metal cage, since these can be washed easily.

Folksong: Clean cages and shop area with detergent and water daily.Clean shop well/keepenvironment well

Clean shop well to control birdflu/disease does not enter body

Clean shop daily

Wash shop with water morningand evening so that thereremains no dirt

Clean and wash shop in every2/3 days

4 (5)

2 (2)

2 (2)

1 (1)

1 (1)

Clean shop well

Clean shop well to control birdflu/disease does not enter body

Clean and wash shop in every2/3 days

Wash shop with water morningand evening so that thereremains no dirt

Wash cages with hot water

1 (1)

2 (2)

1 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)




Wash backyard chicken shop

Wash cages with hot water

Clean cage/clean cage well

Wash bamboo and iron cagewith water

Wash cage with detergentrepeatedly

Total

1 (1)

1 (1)

3 (4)

1 (1)

1 (1)

18 (20)

Wash bamboo and iron cagewith water

Use iron cage so that it could bewashed

Wash backyard chicken shop

Clean cage/clean cage well

Use iron cage so that it could bewashed

1 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)

10 (10)

Poster: Support weekly closure of the LBM for thorough cleaning and disinfection.

Docudrama: Do not trade chicken one day in a week and clean well on that day. Cleanfloor, wall and ceiling with soap or detergent and hot water one day weekly.

Folksong: Support weekly closure of the LBM for thorough washing and disinfection tocontrol bird flu.

Keep market close one dayweekly to clean shops

Keep poultry market clean

Keep shop closed on Mondayand wash with detergent and hotwater

Total

2 (2)

1 (1)

1 (1)

4 (4)

Keep market close and destockone day weekly to clean shops

Keep poultry market clean

2 (2)

1 (1)

3 (3)Poster: Close contact with dead or sick poultry can increase the risk of contracting bird fluinfection.

Docudrama: Do not touch sick poultry or excreta, saliva, liquid secretion from nose, cage,shed, food, feeder and egg of sick poultry or even the surface of contaminated object as itcan increase the risk of contracting bird flu infection.

Folksong: Beware of contracting bird flu infection as it is contagious and transmit frompoultry to human

None N/A None N/APoster: Contact with blood and excreta of dead or sick bird can cause bird flu infection.

Folksong: Healthy poultry can get bird flu easily from blood and excreta of infected poultry.

None N/A None N/APoster: Wear gloves, masks and apron while slaughtering, processing and disposing wastesof poultry.

Docudrama: Use gloves and mask while slaughtering and disposing offal and waste.

Folksong: Wear mask, gloves and apron while processing sick poultry as contact with bloodand meat after processing sick poultry can cause bird flu infection.

Use gloves/mask/gumboot toavoid bird flu/disease/germ

Use mask and gloves always

4 (5)

1 (1)

Use gloves/mask/gumboot toavoid bird flu/disease/germ

Use gloves and mask

4 (5)

3 (3)




Use gloves and mask for broilerchickens

Use gloves/mask/gumboot

Total

1 (1)

6 (7)

12 (14)

Use gloves and mask for broilerchickens

1 (1)

8 (9)Poster: Wash hands with soap and disinfect both hands after slaughtering, processing anddisposing waste of poultry.

Docudrama: Wash workers’ hands and legs with soap and disinfect every time afterslaughtering.

Folksong: Wash hands with soap and disinfect both hands after slaughtering and disposingoffal and waste.

Wash hands with soap(mentioned five steps) afterprocessing chickens

Wash hands with soap afterprocessing every chicken

Wash hands with soap always/repeatedly

Wash hands after touching cageand processing, selling andfeeding chickens to avoid birdflu

Wash hand with soap and cleanthe dirt inside nails

Wash hands with soap

Clean hands to avoid bird flu

Wash hand before eating

Clean hands after slaughtering

Total

1 (1)

6 (7)

2 (2)

1 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)

15 (16)

Wash hands with soap(mentioned five steps) afterprocessing chickens

Wash hands with soap afterprocessing every chicken

Wash hands repeatedly

Wash hand with soap and cleanthe dirt inside nails

Wash hands after touchingcage/processing, selling andfeeding chickens to avoid birdflu

Clean hands to avoid bird flu

1 (1)

2 (2)

1 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)

7 (7)

Other messages informants recalled from interventionOn sick and dead disposal

Docudrama: Dispose sick and dead birds in a specific drum or dustbin.

Burn/ bury sick chickens

Dispose carcass away and industbin

Slaughter and dispose bird fluinfected chickens in bin

Put carcass in polythene anddispose in bin so that birds andanimals cannot scavenge

3 (4)

1 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)

Burn/ bury sick chickens

Dispose carcass away and industbin

Slaughter and dispose bird fluinfected chickens in bin

Put carcass in polythene anddispose in bin so that birds andanimals cannot scavenge

3 (4)

1 (2)

1 (2)

1 (2)




Do not throw carcass inopen/feed carcass to dog

Total

1 (1)

7 (8)

Do not throw carcass inopen/feed carcass to dog

1 (2)

7(8)

On cleaning slaughtering and processing place and/or equipments

Docudrama: Keep the slaughtering place clean. Wash the drinker, feeder, weighingmachine, slaughtering knife and dressing machine with soap and water daily. Wash thedrum or dustbin with soap and water to clean and disinfect. Clean the slaughtering placeat least 2 times daily with detergent and water.

Clean knife/drum/processingtray/dressing machine

Wash knife after slaughtering

Wash knife after slaughteringeach chicken

Clean processing tray withbleaching powder or detergentand water

Clean processingtray/slaughtering place daily

Wash drum after slaughteringchickens 2-3 times daily

Wash drum with hot water

Clean the blood with water

Total

6 (7)

1 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)

2 (2)

1 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)

14 (15)

Clean knife/processingtray/dressing machine

Wash knife after slaughteringevery chicken

Clean processingtray/slaughtering place daily

Clean processing tray withbleaching powder or detergentand water

Clean the blood with water

Wash flapping drum afterslaughtering chickens 2-3 timesdaily

3 (4)

1 (2)

2 (2)

1 (2)

1 (2)

1 (2)

9 (10)On slaughtering, processing and cooking meat

Docudrama: Slaughter poultry in a specific place of the market. There is no evidence ofspreading bird flu through thoroughly boiled or cooked egg or meat anywhere in theworld till today. This virus does not survive more than half an hour in the temperature wecook.

Wash meat with water and keepin clean place

How to slaughter and processchicken

Wash bird flu infected chickenswith hot water

Boil/cook meat thoroughly

Total

1 (1)

3 (4)

1 (1)

4 (5)

9 (11)

Wash meat with water and keepin clean place

Wash bird flu infected chickenswith hot water

Wash the vehicle used fortransporting chicken Boil/cookmeat thoroughly

1 (2)

1 (2)

4 (5

6 (7)

On transporting chickens

Docudrama: Wash and disinfect vehicle and cage well before and after transportingchicken. Do not transport humans and chickens on the same vehicle. Unload poultry in aspecific place of the market.




* Multiple responses. Percentages do not sum up to 100.

** Excerpts from script of docudrama

Among the nine recommended preventive messages disseminated during the intervention,the team recorded at least one response referring to each of the seven messages (Table 15).For each recommended message, the team recorded various responses recalled by theinformants. Although the responses recalled by the informants were relevant with aparticular recommended message, most of the responses did not fully match therecommended message. For example, they could mention that the intervention teamrecommended cleaning the shops but none mentioned the complete message that includedthe conditions ‘with detergent and water’ and ‘daily’.

The informants also mentioned receiving some additional messages in the interventionwhich did not explicitly refer to any of the nine recommended messages but are indirectlyrelated to the messages included either in docudrama or folksong (Table 15). Although noneof the nine recommendations included any message on processing and cooking meat, fourinformants, who referred to the docudrama, mentioned boiling or cooking meat thoroughly.

Informants related some measures with bird flu prevention, some with general diseaseprevention but most with cleanliness and hygiene. Most frequently mentioned responseswere related to cleaning cages and shop area (20%, n=88), slaughtering places andequipments (15%, n=88) and handwashing (16%, n=88). Eleven informants reported thatthe docudrama’s core theme was about cleanliness and two informants reported thedocudrama’s core theme was about bird flu and cleanliness. On the other hand, 11informants reported the folksong was about bird flu and one informant reported the folksongwas about bird flu and cleanliness. Informants referred to docudrama more frequently thanthe song while reporting the messages. None of the informants mentioned any messagereferring to ‘not touching sick or dead bird or offal, blood and excreta of sick/dead bird withbare hands as it can increase the risk of contracting AI infection’. However, one informantmentioned avoiding contact with blood to avoid disease when he talked about using gloves.Informants did not relate transmission of bird flu through touching sick or dead bird or offal,blood and excreta of sick/dead bird with bare hands with the intervention messages.

Wash the vehicle used fortransporting chicken

Total

1 (1)

1(1)

1 (1)

1(1)On buying poultry from farms

Docudrama: Do not buy poultry from more than one farm on the same day. Wash handsand legs and change cloth and shoes before entering the farm to collect chickens. Do notreenter the unsold poultry in the farm. Do not visit others’ poultry shop or market.

None N/A None N/A

On using cages

Docudrama: Do not let cages of poultry traders or transporters enter the poultry shop. Usecages so that those can be identified easily. For this, using different colors of cages is better.Do not put one cage above another.

None N/A None N/A

Total response 88 (97) 57 (61)




Suggestions by the shop owner, workers and slaughterers:

Visual presentation is more effective to draw attention.

The program could have been more successful if the initiative engaged not only theintervention organizer but also the market committee.

Arranging the program in the evening is better rather than in the morning, sincecustomers rush in the morning. If the session is arranged during the busiest markethour, shop owners’ or workers’ are distracted, as their minds is focused onbusiness/work.

The organizers should inform the target audience about the upcoming session at leastone day prior to the dissemination.

The organizers should repeat the sessions, for example once a week or a month as arefresher. The shop owners or workers will not remember the recommendations ifintervention is disseminated only once a year.

People could watch if the sessions were arranged on Monday (weekly market closureday).

Influential poultry shop owners or market businessmen should be involved in theprocess or should take initiative to motivate the other shop owners and workers.

The members of the market associations reported that they assisted the intervention team inorganizing the sessions for the docudrama and folksong. The members used the terms‘cinema’, ‘television screen’ and ‘porda’ to refer to the docudrama. Members of one marketassociation mentioned that people did not understand the folksong. They provided a numberof suggestions for future intervention. The suggestions are as follows;

It would be better if the sessions are repeated every month. Audience will forgetabout the messages if dissemination sessions are arranged once every 3-4 months.There should also be weekly monitoring.

Session timing should be set with the shop owners first. If the shop owners instructthe workers to participate, the workers will be compelled to obey.

The intervention organizers should first explain how bird flu enters the human bodybefore insiting market workers adopt preventing measures. They should explore thebarriers to implementing a specific preventive measure and then provide a solutionand simplify the recommendation to make it easier to follow.

A committee should be established consisting of 5-7 persons who will be responsiblefor monitoring the markets. This committee will report everything to the interventionorganizers. The committee members will also support better communicationbetween the intervention organizers and the shop owners and workers. It would beeasier for the committee to make the owners and workers comply withrecommendations, as the intervention organizers have limited leverage on marketworkers.




Poultry keeping practices before and after intervention

Types of poultry keeping arrangement:

Use of different poultry keeping arrangements remained unchanged after the intervention(Figure 28-31); 61% (119/194) shops used bamboo baskets before intervention compared to60% (116/193) after intervention, 56% (109/194) shops used metal cages before interventioncompared to 59% (113/193) after intervention and 25% (48/194) shops kept birdsunrestrained on the floor before intervention compared to 27% (53/193) after intervention.The qualitative team found the same arrangement (metal baskets for broiler/layer chickens,bamboo cage for backyard chickens and some broiler and layer chickens kept on floor) forkeeping poultry as pre-intervention. Unlike pre-intervention, two informants reportedkeeping broiler chickens in bamboo baskets. The owners or workers mentioned inadequatespace in the cage for excess broiler chickens as the reason for keeping them in the bamboobasket.

The explanations for using different housing arrangement for different species provided bythe informants interviewed post-intervention were similar to those provided by the pre-intervention informants (Table 16). Unlike pre-intervention informants, none mentionedplastic cage as an option for keeping birds in the shop.

Among those who mentioned witnessing or hearing about the intervention, only one broilerslaughterer reported hearing recommendation on using metal cage so that it could bewashed every day. None of the market association members mentioned hearing any messageon recommendation on poultry keeping arrangement.


Figure 28 & 29: Backyard poultry keeping arrangement




Figure 30 & 31: Broiler/layer poultry keeping arrangement in the same shop

Figure 32 & 33: Keeping chickens and ducks together in the same basket

Figure 34 & 35: Cleaning of same backyard shop




Figure 36 & 37: Cleaning of same broiler shop

Figure 38 & 39: Cleaning passages in market area

Figure 40 & 41: Waste disposed inside shops




Figure 42 & 43: Offal stored in drums for selling to the fish farmers

Figure 44 & 45: Waste disposed in open place of the market

Figure 46 & 47: City corporation waste disposal dustbin of market




Figure 48 & 49: Processing poultry without using any PPE

Figure 50 & 51: Worker of the same shop wearing apron while processing

Figure 52 & 53: Washing hands by dipping in soiled water




Separating different bird species:

The number of shops that kept every different species of bird in separate housingarrangement increased; 79% (154/194) before intervention compared to 87% (167/193)after intervention. As determined before the intervention, different bird species/breeds (jaat)were housed separately in the shops after intervention. However, piled-up or adjacent cagesor baskets without proper separator to prevent feces and other droppings to drop down fromupper to lower cages were common (Figure 58 & 59). The perception regarding separatingdifferent bird species of the post-intervention informants were similar to those of pre-intervention (Table 16). They also reported separating birds of same species/breed accordingto difference in size. The owners and workers informed that keeping different species/breedseparate was not a new practice, rather a usual and instrumental one that they had beenpracticing from the beginning of their business.

Figure 54 & 55: Dead poultry disposed in the market dustbin

Figure 56 & 57: Weekly closure day in the same market




On the other hand, the number of shops that kept two or more species together decreased;21% (40/194) before intervention compared to 13% (26/193) after intervention. However,the team also observed the housing of chickens and ducks together in several shops of themarkets after the dissemination of the intervention (Figure 33). None of the informantsmentioned believing that keeping different bird species/breed together increased the risk ofdisease transmission. A broiler slaughterer explained,

“I don’t know about the chance of disease transmission if duck and chicken are kepttogether. I see that people keep duck and chicken together, but disease doesn’t transmit. Ido not think disease transmits. [Chickens and ducks] can stay together. There is noproblem.”

A backyard owner explained,

“I do not think there is any problem [if birds are kept together]. But for [convenience in]selling, we keep ducks in duck cage and pigeon in pigeon cage. Virus could transmit fromone bird to another anyway [even if different species/breed are kept separate], since all[different species/breed] are kept in the same place, same shop.”

Among those who mentioned witnessing or hearing about the intervention, only one broilerslaughterer informed hearing a message on separating chicken and duck. He stated,

“Two singers sang song on bird flu… In the song, they also said that backyard chickens andducks should be separated… [The singers] mentioned [benefits of separating poultry] but Ican’t remember.”

None mentioned observing any change in bird keeping practices after the intervention. Noneof the market association members mentioned hearing any message related to therecommendation of separating different bird species or chickens and ducks.

Figure 58: Adjacent baskets Figure 59: Piled-up cages




Table 16: Similarities and dissimilarities in responses on perception regarding differentpractices before and after intervention

Similar responsesDissimilar responses


Reasons for using or not using bamboo cage

Backyard poultry remainedhealthy and could move freely

A rural environment forbackyard chickens

Convenient for selling backyardchickens

Convenient for displayingbackyard chickens

-

-

-

-

Lighter and easy to liftwhile cleaning than theiron cages

Disposable straw could beused to contain the feces

Broiler chickens might diefrom heat in congestedenvironment

-

Reasons for using or not using metal cageSuitable for displaying broilerchickens to the customers

Easy to clean

-

Poultry could not be stolenor taken away byrat/mongoose/cat

Long-lasting

Heavy and costly

Bigger in size when thereis not enough space inshop

Poultry lose weight

More spacious to keepmore poultry

Broiler chickens couldmove comfortably

-

Reasons for keeping or not keeping poultry on floor

Chickens could move freely inan open environment with moreair and light

Feces smear on chicken’sbody

Inadequate space in metalcage for excess chicken

Reasons for separating or not separating different bird species

Convenience of displaying andselling to the customers

Refraining birds from fightingwith each other

Difference in characteristics andraising practices of differentbreed/species

Financial benefit from mixingdeshi and Pakistani breed

Chickens cannot be visibleif kept among ducksL

-

-

-

Space limitation

A usual practice

-

-




When there is only a smallnumber of chickens left afterselling or around the closingtime

- -

Reason for cleaning or not cleaning

Attracting customers

Avoiding bad smell

Preventing disease or germs

Controlling pest

Preventing human disease

Feel fresh/clean

Poultry waste created bad smelland disease transmitted from badsmell and dirt such as difficultybreathing and coughing

No relation between cleanlinessand disease

Blood stains on floorlooked bad

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Preventing poultrydisease/sickness

Poultry waste createdharmful gas

Dust might soil others shopowners’ products

Customers becomesuspicious about too muchof cleaning

Lack of water

Lack of drainage system

Difficult to lift the heavydressing machines andpoultry keeping cages.

Decision of using detergentis up to owner’s discretion

Market people will laughat them if they usedetergent.

Cleaning cemented shop istime consuming

Lack of time as thecustomers were in a hurry

Reasons for using or not using PPEAvoid contact with blood whileslaughtering and processingactivities

Avoid inhalation of dust andfeather

Feel uncomfortable

Inconvenience to carry out theprocessing tasks

Carcass slipped from hand

Inconvenience to hold live birdswhile displaying to customers

Grip became weak andcleaning gizzards becamedifficult

Difficulty in breathing andtalking while working

Odd appearance

Difficulty of wearinggumboot during processingwhile crouching on thefloor

-

-

Avoiding contact with livebird

Avoiding contact with sickor dead birds

For cleaning shops

Preventing germs

-

-




Slaughtering practices

Poultry slaughtering and processing practices remained unchanged after the intervention(Figure 48 & 49). The team observed processing on the floor and children working in theshops and common slaughtering places in all the markets as identified before theintervention. The same equipments, such as knife, metal tray, water boiling pot, dressingmachine, flapping cone, flapping drum, wooden log and plastic sheet were observed to beused for slaughtering and processing as before the intervention. Additionally, workers andslaughterers were observed to consume food while working without washing their hands.

Hands sweat

Customers became suspicious

Gloves tore

-

-

-

-

-

-

Reasons for washing or not washing hands with soap

Crisis of water and drain

Inadequate time duringslaughtering or processing

Unavailability of soap

Frequent use of soap caused skinproblem

Using soap increasedexpenditure

Did not face any problem for notwashing hand with soap

-

-

-

-

-

-

Using soap for removingbad smell

For maintaining cleanlinessand for risk of disease

Frequent use of soap is awaste of time whilecustomer rush

Frequent hand washing isdifficult

-

-

Reasons for maintaining or not maintaining a weekly closure dayTake rest or spend time withfamily

Inspection or penalty by CityCorporation

Losing wage for a day

Financial losses for staff wagesand shop rent

Death of poultry

-

-

-

-

-

Cleaning the market

Fear losing permanentcustomers for a day ofclosure

Removing bad smell

Do not believe closure daywould prevent disease

-

Reason for trading or not trading sick poultry

Not selling sick poultry incurfinancial loss

- Selling sick poultry mightcause bad reputation totheir regular customers




Market and shop cleaning and waste disposal practices

Cleaning of poultry housing quarters:

Post-intervention informants reported dusting off the bamboo baskets with dry broom orwooden stick, which the team also observed during the pre-intervention period. A broilerslaughterer also reported changing the straw in the bamboo baskets every 2 to 3 days.

For metal cages, informants reported dusting them daily with a broom and washing themwith detergent and water once a year. Another informant also informed that he scraped dryfeces from the cages with a knife, wiped them with a wet cloth and washed them with wateronce a month. They reported disposing feces 1-3 times daily from the tray under the cagewhere feces accumulates and washing the tray with water after disposing feces. Onerespondent reported washing the tray once in a year. A broiler owner reported weeklychanging of the plastic sac that was used under the metal cage to contain the feces.

One backyard owner and two broiler slaughterers reported hearing a message on cleaningpoultry cages. A broiler slaughterer stated,

“[The intervention team] recommended using iron cage so that it could be washed everyday…. They showed small cages, not the big ones.”

Cleaning of shop area, equipment and slaughtering place:

There was no change in the cleaning practices of the market area after the interventionperiod (Figure 34-37). All the backyard poultry shop owners reported only dry sweeping offloor 1-3 times daily. One backyard owner reported applying spray to the shop after everyone or two days. The broiler/layer shop owners or workers mentioned dry sweeping (5/8),washing the floor area with water/hot water (2/8), or water and detergent (1/8) at least oncebefore closing the shop at night. A broiler owner reported applying bleaching powder afterwashing the floor with water.

Similar to pre-intervention practices, informants (8/16) reported that they cleaned theslaughtering corner and slaughtering equipments (offal disposal drum, flapping drum, watercontainer used for cleaning gizzard and handwashing, knife, processing tray and waterboiling container) with water while cleaning the shop area before closing. Three broilerowner and slaughterer reported using hot water for cleaning the slaughtering corner andequipments. Three other informants reported using detergent for cleaning slaughteringcorner and equipments at night before closing.

For common slaughtering place, slaughterers reported dry sweeping in the morning andwashing with water and broom at least two times daily usually at noon and at night beforeclosing. A slaughterer informed that he washed the common slaughtering place withdetergent at noon and with bleaching powder at night but the team did not observe any useof detergent for cleaning at noon.

Informants mentioned similar reasons during post-intervention as they did during preintervention for performing the cleaning activities (Table 16). One broiler owner said,

“The main thing is the slaughtering drum [drum that is used to contain slaughtered birdsand flapping]. Blood smears in it… Many chickens are dipped in the water boiling containerwhole day…. These become clean if abraded with surf excel [local brand of detergent]… Iam doing it because it is good for me. There may be virus inside that drum or [the container]in which I am boiling water. This is harmful. Disease may transmit to human body… If thedrum is not cleaned, germ may transmit from it.”




Two informants also mentioned that water only was enough for cleaning activities. One ofthese two informants added that everyday cleaning was not necessary and that he cleanedhis shop on Fridays, as did other workers in his market.

Broiler owners and workers mentioned some barriers to practicing cleaning activities (Table16). A slaughterer said,

“It [floor] is not washed with water. It is getting dirty every day. What is the necessity ofwashing with water? I dry sweep [the floor]... I think washing [the floor] with water is goodbut [it is possible] for well structured tiled shop. It is not possible to wash this shop withwater… Where the water would be drained? If there were a drainage system in front ofevery shop in the market, then water could be used to wash all the shops and drainedthrough the tubes… Every shop would have remained clean and there would no longerremain any dirt or bad smell in the market.”

A broiler owner stated,

“We maintain cleanliness from our own. Customers would not come if [we] keep [the shop]dirty. We do as much as required to fulfill their [customers’] demand. Again, if we do it inan ultramodern way [maintaining over cleanliness], customers will not come. Customerguess that the seller recover the cost [of maintaining over cleanliness] from the customer.”

A broiler slaughterer mentioned that despite being aware of the recommendation to cleanthe shop and slaughtering equipment with detergent, he did not use detergent. He explained,

“This [the decision of using detergent] is up to owner’s discretion. The workers have beenwashing [shop and slaughtering equipment without detergent] for a long time. If we startwashing with detergent in a new style, people will say that we are showing attitude andmarket people will laugh [at us].”

More than half of the informants (10/16) mentioned hearing the recommendation regardingcleaning of shops, slaughtering places and equipment from the folk song and docudrama. Aninformant reported that he knew about shop cleaning from a woman who visited the marketregularly. The reported responses regarding the messages delivered in the intervention varied(Table 15). Among the ten informants, three reported a change in behavior after theintervention.

A market association member, who owned a broiler chicken shop in the market, reportedthat they told the shop owners and workers to clean the shop once a week and the floorevery day if possible before the intervention. He also mentioned that the shops could becleaned on Sunday, since the market remained closed on that day, except for the wet marketwhich includes the poultry market, and thus there was less rush of customers on that day.

Waste disposal practices:

The waste disposal and cleaning practices of the market area also remained same as the pre-intervention period (Figure 38-47). Shop owners, workers or slaughterers stored offal in acontainer and sold to the fish farmers once daily. Skin and wings were stored open on thefloor and later sold or taken away separately by women or children. Workers or slaughterersdumped feathers on the floors of the shops and market cleaners later disposed those in theopen grounds or waste disposal places.

In the shops that did not have drains attached, soiled water used for processing or in thedressing machine either rolled down to the walkways and dried from the grounds or stored ina container and later disposed in the main drain or open market disposal places at their




convenience. The team observed workers pouring soiled water in a hole that was created bymouse inside the shop. One broiler owner informed that he reused the used water for cleaninggizzard and hand and also for dressing machine by mixing with the boiling water in it.

Hired cleaners collected waste piled up in front of the shops and passages and disposed ofit in the market waste disposal places 1-2 times daily. The waste was finally taken away bythe City Corporation vehicle once daily. Although there were big disposal bins (provided byCity Corporation) in eight markets, waste was disposed in open places in all markets. Abroiler slaughterer said,

“It would be better to have a dustbin. [Now] we need to walk over the waste to dispose thewaste. The government should do this [make a dustbin]… We are disposing in open places.Crows take away skins [of poultry] and the wastes and spread the smell all over. Isn’t itbetter to dispose in a dustbin?”

Four respondents related the risk of spreading disease with disposing waste in open place. Abroiler owner said,

“Flies and crows scavenge in the place where wastes are disposed. This may spreaddiseases.”

Two informants mentioned hearing about disposing waste in a specific place or dustbin inthe intervention. One marker association member informed that they told to the shop ownersand workers to dispose waste in a specific place and not to dump here and there. He alsoinformed that they were aware about this even before the intervention.

Weekly closure day:

After intervention, six markets reported having Monday as a weekly closure day comparedto five markets reporting the same before intervention. Two of these six markets reported notfollowing the weekly closure.

Informants (5) mentioned knowing about weekly closure day from government authority orCity Corporation. Like pre intervention, some (6) post-intervention informants were not clearabout the objective of the weekly closure day. Five informants reported that the objective ofa weekly closure was to support market cleaning activities and one thought its purpose wasto help remove bad smell.

All the post-intervention informants related the weekly closure day with financial loss likethe pre-intervention informants (Table 16). A backyard owner explained his difficulties forremaining unsold poultry (Figure 63 & 78),

“Would it [market] be cleaned more on Monday [in a negative sense]? It would remain thesame. If my shop is clean, customer will come to my shop. … [A closure day] is a total lossfor us. Suppose, today is Sunday and I bought 200 chickens today. I could sell only 10chickens in the whole day and 190 chickens remained. I would leave the remainingchickens [in the shop]. If I cannot take proper care to those chickens and they remain likethis whole day, wouldn’t they fall sick? Aren’t these ‘kacha mal’ [perishable item or rawmaterial]?”

However, as found during pre-intervention assessment, post-intervention informants alsomentioned some usefulness of a weekly closure day, such as taking rest and hanging out. Abackyard slaughterer related the weekly closure day with taking rest only and mentioned thata closure day would not prevent disease.




Figure 60 & 61: Regular activity on Monday in common slaughtering places of the markets that did notfollow weekly closure

Figure 62 & 63: Closed shops on Monday with remaining poultry in cages or covered baskets in a marketthat followed weekly closure

Figure 64 & 65: Some shops remained open and sold remaining birds on Monday in the markets thatfollowed weekly closure




Figure 66 & 67: Cleaning slaughtering equipments on Sunday night in the markets that followed weeklyclosure

Figure 68 : Cleaning floor on Sunday night in amarket that followed weekly closure

Figure 70: Cleaning passage on Sunday night in amarket that followed weekly closure

Figure 71: Drum after cleaning on Sunday night in amarket that followed weekly closure

Figure 69: Cleaning drum on Sunday night in amarket that followed weekly closure




Figure 72 & 73: Cleaning floor with detergent on Sunday night inmarkets that followed weekly closure; absence ofdrain caused clogging of water and wetting thepassage

Figure 74: Cleaning drains onSunday night in amarket that followedweekly closure

Figure 75 & 76: Passages after cleaning on Sunday night in marketsthat followed weekly closure

Figure 77: Poultry left in cageson Sunday night in amarket that followedweekly closure




In the markets that followed a weekly closure day during post intervention, the team did notfind any difference in cleaning practices on a weekly closure day other than the regularcleaning practices as found during pre-intervention. No destocking or disinfection activitiesoccurred during that day. The owners and workers reported same reasons for coming to themarket on the weekly closure day, such as selling (Figure 56 & 59) and feeding the remainingbirds. As found before intervention, some reported cleaning the shop area and theequipment on the night prior to the closure day, which the team also observed (Figures 68-77). Additionally, three of these informants reported cleaning their shops with detergent andbleaching powder on that night. Another backyard common slaughterer, who reported notusing any detergent for cleaning in pre-intervention, mentioned during post-intervention thatthe shop owner provided him detergent to clean the shop at closure day.

Informants of a market that had a weekly closure day for poultry market mentioned somebarriers for thorough cleaning of the shop. A broiler slaughterer informed that dust createdfrom cleaning might soil others shop owners’ products, since other shops of the marketremained open on the poultry market closure day. He stated,

“We cannot use the closure day. Spider net and dust attach [to the shop and equipments].If I strike those to dust off, the dirt will spoil the beef of the butcher’s shop in front. This iswhy we don’t do any cleaning on that day. I do it if I get time in the afternoon any day, asthere is less rush on that time.”

Two owners of the same market suggested cleaning everyday instead of observing a closureday for cleaning. A broiler owner said,

“It is better not to close the poultry market. Instead of closing the poultry market,[government or authority] might make a rule for cleaning the poultry shops. You would visitweekly if the shops are cleaned or not. If [the shops] are less clean, then there should beaction according to the law… Then the shops will remain clean. If the shop remains openon Monday [the weekly closure day], it [his business] will remain alive.”

Informants from the markets that had a closure day mentioned inspection or penalty by CityCorporation. A broiler slaughterer mentioned that people came from City Corporation everyweek to check whether the markets were observing the closure day. Four informantsmentioned that police arrested and fined the shop owners if they sold poultry or kept theirshops open on that day. The fined amount ranged from 2,000 to 5,000 BDT.

Two shop owners of a market that did not have a weekly closure day reported that they hadbeen hearing about City Corporation’s initiative to implement a closure day in their marketsince one year. However, it had not been implemented until the time of data collection. Asone of them explained,

“City Corporation called for a meeting regarding the closure 2/3 months ago in the market…In that meeting, it was decided that the market could not be close for one day in a week[because] poultry is a raw item and the stock is not exhausted regularly. If there are stockremaining, [a closure day] brings loss [for them].”

A backyard slaughterer reported that a notice for a weekly closure day was moved for 2-3times and a broiler owner was fined 20,000 BDT for not following the day, though ithappened only once or twice. However, the closure day did not work in their market. Toensure maintaining a weekly closure day, informants suggested imposing a fine or making itobligatory.




A backyard slaughterer of this market expressed a different opinion. He mentioned that theloss for the closure day could be recovered on Friday, since the selling increased on Friday.Although there was no weekly closure day, a backyard owner of this market reported recentchange in cleaning practices. He informed that earlier he used to clean the shop infrequentlybut currently he was cleaning weekly. He used to apply detergent powder before, since theshop used to be dirtier. Recently he started using water only, since he cleaned every week.

Two informants mentioned hearing about the message of a weekly closure day from theintervention. One of them said that it was shown in the intervention to keep the marketclosed one day for cleaning shops. He reported following this recommendation from theintervention every Sunday night by cleaning shop with hot water and surf excel. He stated,

“The government has recommended this [intervention recommendation on bird flu] forcontrolling bird flu. They said that bird flu could be controlled if entering or the selling ofpoultry in Dhaka city is restricted for one day. We do all the washing on Sunday night andwe don’t need to do anything on Monday.”

Association members of one market reported hearing about the recommendation of a weeklyclosure day for cleaning in the intervention.

Hygiene practices

Personal protective equipment (PPE):

Observed use of PPE was very low. The intervention did not have any observable impact onthe use of available PPE by market workers (Figure 48 & 49). During post-intervention datacollection, the team observed three persons to wear personal protective equipments. Theyobserved the same two broiler slaughterers in two different markets to wear mask or apronafter intervention who wore those before intervention (Figure 50 & 51). Additionally, theyobserved a broiler slaughterer wearing gumboot in another market (Figure 79). Like pre-intervention, none reported currently using any personal protection for any activity.

Figure 78: A broiler slaughterer wearing gumboot Figure 79: DLS persons distributing gloves andmasks in a market




Informants mentioned gloves (16), masks (14), apron (3) and gumboot (3) as personalprotective equipment. They mentioned intervention (9), City Corporation (5), icddr,b (1),other shop owner (1), chick and feed producing company (1) and doctors (1) as sources ofinformation on or supply of personal protective equipment. Informants mentioned a numberof reasons for using gloves (Table X). One informant mentioned avoiding contact with bloodas a reason for using apron and another informant mentioned avoiding germ as a reason forusing gumboot.

Like pre-intervention, post-intervention informants also mentioned similar barriers for usingpersonal protective equipments (Table 16). A broiler slaughterer mentioned that it could beuseful if they got good quality gloves which would not tear apart.

Although the informants reported receiving personal protective equipments from differentgovernment or non-government organizations, they could not show those to the researchteam, since those were not available with them. They reported keeping mask in pocket,keeping at home or giving to the children for playing. A broiler slaughterer mentioned thathe kept the mask at home, since it would become dirty in the shop. The team observed DLSpersons to distribute gloves and masks in the shops of a market. The following excerpt fromthe observation note illustrates the reaction of shop owners and workers after thedistribution:

Figure 80 & 81: Some owners and workers immediately wore the gloves and started working

Figure 82: Gloves tore in few minutes anddumped on the passage

Figure 83: A customer wore a mask




Two persons came from DLS and distributed a pair of gloves and a mask to each ofthe shops in the market (Figure 80). The owners, workers or slaughterers startedcomplaining immediately that they were more than one, sometimes 4-5 persons pershop and that they were getting sufficient gloves and mask for one person only. Thensome of them started wearing the masks and gloves (Figures 81 & 82). In some shops,two workers used one glove each and started working. For some, the gloves torewhile putting them on and for others, they tore while working. Torn gloves weredumped instantly in the passageway (Figure 83).

Three slaughterers (two slaughterers attended the docudrama and one slaughterer herad thefolksong) reported preventing germ as a reason for using gloves and mask. Nevertheless, theymentioned that personal protective equipments were of no use to them. In the two groupdiscussions, market association members mentioned that they heard about therecommendation of using gloves, mask and gumboot in the intervention.

Hand hygiene:

During the post-intervention data collection, the team observed a slaughterer washing hishands with soap after processing poultry and before leaving the shop area. Occasioan wheninformants mentioned washing their hands with soap where the same as those mentioned inthe pre-assessment, with one additional occasion being when there was no customer or workin the shop. A slaughterer also mentioned using soap for removing odor of chicken. Nonementioned washing their hands with soap after slaughtering or handling birds. Similarbarriers for using soap were cited as during the pre-intervention assessment by informants(Table 16). A slaughterer stated,

“We do not have soap but surf excel [a local brand of detergent]. We do not use it [surfexcel] because we have crisis of water and even do not have drain.”

Similar to pre-intervention assessment, rinsing hands only with water during slaughtering andprocessing was a common practice, both reported and observed. When asked before talkingabout intervention, none related handwashing with preventing getting of poultry disease.Two informants mentioned that they did not wash hands after handling deadchicken/carcass.

Among those who mentioned witnessing or hearing about the intervention, 10 informantsmentioned hearing message on handwashing. Informants mentioned that the reasons behindthis recommendation were maintaining cleanliness and avoiding risk of getting disease.None of these 10 informants reported practicing hand washing after the intervention. Theymentioned the same barriers as pre-intervention for handwashing with soap (Table 14).

Only four of the 16 informants mentioned about the steps of handwashing, two of whomreported the intervention as the source of their information. Two of these four informantscould mention all five recommended steps of handwashing; one received the informationfrom the intervention and the other from television and other people.

None of the market association members mentioned receiving any message on handwashingfrom the intervention.




Handling and trading sick and dead birds

Post-intervention informants were more spontaneous in responding about practices relatedto sick and dead poultry than the pre-intervention informants. As found before intervention,sick poultry were slaughtered and sold and dead poultry were discarded after intervention inthese markets. No separate arrangement was observed for keeping sick poultry in shops ormarkets after intervention as found before.

Five informants reported separating sick poultry from health poultry. Two of them reportedseparating sick poultry in one part of the same cage where healthy poultry were kept. Oneinformant reported hiding the sick on the floor in a way so that it was not visible to thecustomers. Another informant reported keeping sick poultry in the store to sell later at awholesale rate. Four informants reported keeping sick and healthy poultry together. Like pre-intervention informants, one informant mentioned that he would not be able to sell the sickpoultry if he kept it separate which would incur financial loss. One informant mentioned thatsick and dead poultry incurs a loss of fifteen thousand taka per month in his shop.

Like pre-intervention, both backyard and broiler owners reported attempting to sell sickpoultry quickly even at a low price or consuming. A common perception found amonginformants that sick poultry could be consumed after cooking, since heat will destroy anyharmful substance (including bird flu). A backyard slaughterer reported that they did nothave any role to play in impeding selling of sick poultry, since they only slaughtered andprocessed the poultry that customers brought to them after purchasing.

As found before intervention, ten informants reported disposing the carcass in the offaldisposal drum to sell later to the fish farmers along with offal and two reported disposingcarcass in the waste disposal place of the market. Like pre-intervention, the team observedpresence of dead poultry on the floor of the shops under the cages and disposal of deadpoultry in the markets’ open waste disposal sites (Figure 54 & 57).

Like pre-intervention practices, none reported taking any additional protection whilehandling or slaughtering sick poultry. Unlike before intervention, two informants reportedusing polythene to hold and dispose carcasses. Most of the informants (10) reporteddisposing carcass with bear hands. One informant reported washing hand with soap afterdisposing dead poultry.

Five informants reported hearing messages on trading or disposing sick or dead birds andfour of them related the messages with bird flu (Table 15). One of two informants, who didnot relate the intervention with bird flu, reported only seeing picture dead poultry in posterbut did not mention any message.

Change in awareness on bird flu

All the informants reported hearing about bird flu after intervention. Along with othersources, informants mentioned intervention as a source of information. After intervention,the team found changes in awareness on bird flu. Although awareness regarding origin,sign-symptom and route of transmission of bird flu did not improve substantially,awareness regarding transmission of bird flu from poultry to humans and preventivemeasures increased. Compared to seven informants who mentioned that humans could notget bird flu before intervention, none mentioned the same after intervention. On the otherhand, six informants mentioned that humans can get bird flu after intervention, compared totwo informants reporting the same before intervention. Fifteen informants mentioned at least




one preventive measure for bird flu after intervention compared to nine before intervention(Table 15). The team received at least one response referring to each of the four of the ninerecommended preventive messages for bird flu before intervention, such as cleaning cageand shop area, weekly closure and destocking, wearing gloves and mask and washing hands.After intervention, they received at least one response referring to all the recommendedpreventive measures for bird flu, except not touching sick and dead birds and not touchingoffal blood and excreta of sick/dead bird.

In contrast to prior the intervention, the team found informants to be less guarded aboutresponding to queries about bird flu. Compared to nine informants who before theintervention mentioned that bird flu was a disease that was over and would not come backor that bird flu infected poultry never came to their shop or market, none mentioned suchresponses after the intervention. After the intervention, five informants mentioned messageon cooking meat thoroughly, compared to one before the intervention.

After intervention, the association members of the two markets provided information on birdflu while recalling messages from intervention. They reported receiving information on whatis bird flu, how it can be detected, how it can transmit and how it can be prevented.Members of one market mentioned that bird flu is a viral disease. As preventive measures forbird flu, they mentioned not touching infected chickens, cleaning shop, wearing gloveswhile slaughtering and processing, maintaining weekly closure for cleaning and disposingwaste in specific dustbin.

Customers’ perspective

Customers mentioned proximity from their dwelling, availability of healthy and fresh birds,reasonable price, larger stock, cleanliness and spaciousness as reasons for selecting aparticular market for purchasing birds. Qualities they considered for selecting particularshops were reliable/known shop owner or getting privilege or good behavior, reasonableprice (for backyard) or correct weighing (for broiler/layer), availability of fresh and healthybirds, and cleanliness and hygiene condition of the shop.

Customers expressed their concern regarding the meat getting dirty while processing.Customers of broiler/layer chickens or ducks mentioned that they skinned the poultry insteadof defeathering in dressing machine because they considered the water used in dressingmachine to be dirty and used for several poultry, which could transmit disease from a sickpoultry. A few also mentioned that blood from many poultry got mixed in the processingplace or flapping drum, which could transmit diseases. Two informants expressed theirdisgust and concern for slaughterer or workers’ blood getting smeared on carcass when theycut their hand during processing. A customer also mentioned that the workers or slaughterersdid not wash hands or slaughtering place or equipments. A few customers mentionedshortage of water supply as a barrier for hygiene practice. A few customers also expressedtheir disgust for bad smell.

Customers from all markets reported that they did not observe or heard about anyintervention activity or any change in the infrastructure or practices of the owners,slaughterers or workers during last 3-4 months, except one market. Both customers of RayerBazar market mentioned that the cleanliness of the market area and passages improvedand one of them also mentioned that supply of running water had recently been installed.However, three other customers mentioned a few changes within this period; twocustomers from two separate markets mentioned that the workers or slaughterers startedwashing or cleaning dressing machine and another customer from another marketreported that dressing system had been abolished.




Customers provided some suggestions for shop owners, slaughterers or workers onimproving the hygiene practices in the live bird markets: using gloves and mask, keepingbody clean or wearing apron, regular disposal of waste in bin, controlling pest or fly, usingdisinfectant for cleaning and removing smell, ensuring water supply and functional drainagesystem, handwashing with soap, setting a washing station, cleaning slaughtering place,cleaning equipment and cleaning passages. As the authority that is responsible to play rolein improving hygiene condition of the market, they mentioned government or CityCorporation, NGO, market association and shop owners. They also provided somesuggestions for implementers of hygiene intervention: raising awareness, enforcing rule andmaintaining weekly closure day for cleaning. As ways to raise awareness, they suggestedconducting meetings or seminars, broadcasting in pubic media, announcing through mikeand distributing posters, banners and leaflets. Many customers mentioned that it was notpossible for a customer to influence their behavior unless many raised their voices. Threecustomers mentioned that if there were rules or any written visible instructions, then thecustomers could also enquire or raise complaint against breech of any standard practice;otherwise the shop owners or workers would not listen to the customers. One respondentsuggested that the shop owners or workers could be encouraged saying that wearing gloveswould increase their demand.

Feedback on the communication intervention

Informants expressed varied impression about the intervention. A few informants reportedimprovement in the overall cleanliness of the market or workers. A broiler owner informedthat although he did not start handwashing after intervention, he instructed his workers towash hands with water or detergent frequently. He also reported that his workers sometimesfollowed the instruction and sometimes they did not. One backyard slaughterer said,

“We did not use to apply powder [detergent] before but started applying [detergent]recently. It started after showing ‘publicity’ [docudrama from the intervention]. We used toapply sand before… After they showed ‘publicity’ of bird flu, we often try to follow theirrecommendation.”

A member of a market association stated,

“[The intervention team] recommended cleaning shops once in a week nicely… We used toclean before they [the intervention team] recommended. After their recommendation, weare doing it a little better… Now we are spreading bleaching powder. As Monday is theclosure day, we [clean shops] in the evening or night of Sunday so that [monitoring people]reports well about it… [The intervention team] did not recommend using bleaching powder.We do it from our own consideration… [The intervention team] did not show how to clean,[they] only showed washing shop at night before closing [shop].”

Informants also mentioned a number of barriers in following the recommendations. Abackyard owner mentioned difficulty in following recommended washing for bamboobaskets,

“[The intervention team] recommendation washing bamboo baskets or metal cages withwater. But it is not possible [to wash bamboo baskets]. Bamboo baskets become more dirtyif washed [with water]. It is better to dust off [bamboo baskets] with broom.”

A broiler slaughterer mentioned that workers’ following the recommendation depended onowners’ decision,




“If we are pressured by ‘Upor theke’ [someone influential] like you people, then we willseparate [birds]. [Now we don’t separate because] who listens to whom? We are theworkers here. The shop owners don’t understand this. If owners want, we can keepseparate.”

Another broiler slaughterer mentioned similar barrier for practicing recommended cleaningon market closure day,

“They [The intervention team] showed [through docudrama] that [market] remained closedevery Monday and cleaning [of cages] the way we clean on Sunday night with surf excel[local brand of detergent]… We can do it but we have to abide by the owner. I do not ownthe shop, so I cannot do whatever [the intervention team] tells me to do… Besides, [some]chickens remain [in the cage] every night.”

A backyard owner unavailability of water as a barrier for cleaning the slaughtering place,

“[People] will become aware if they are just provided water… If I am provided water, thenI would think that if I can work hard whole day, I can also pour water on the dirt and cleanthe place. It would look nice if I wash the place with water and broom and keep it dry. [Butnow] I would have to go to that place to bring water. Then I would also have to wait 2-5minutes and buy the water with five taka. This is troublesome… [The intervention team]should first ensure [water supply] and then say these things.”

A broiler slaughterer mentioned the absence of drainage system in their market as a barrierfor cleaning the shops,

“The way they [the intervention team] did, they have drain and water in the market. Theyhave everything. And in our shop, if we pour water, it will drain down and wet the passagesof the market.”

He also mentioned that covered bin could generate bad smell,

“[The intervention team] showed disposing waste in the bin and covering it. Waste remainsin our shop for 1-2 hours, then [the cleaners] take those away. [If they cover the bin] it willsmell bad [due to decomposing].”

A broiler slaughterer mentioned a barrier for disposing waste in the designated bin,

“It is very hard to lift 20-30 kg of waste to dispose [since the disposal bin provided by theCity Corporation was nearly five feet high] in a hurry. So, we dispose on the ground [nearthe bin].”




Informants mentioned a number of barriers for using gloves and masks. A market associationmember mentioned barriers for using gloves,

“They [workers/slaughterers] will wear gloves and mask, but nobody will buy…. Unless weare aware about these, government should take the responsibility [of supplying mask andgloves].”

A broiler slaughterer stated,

“[Gloves] used to tear every day. This is why I did not bother much. It tears beside thefingers when I start processing chickens… I don’t use gumboot but I sometimes use maskand take it home in my pocket.”

A backyard owner said,

“Some customer fear death. They think that [shop owners] are wearing gloves so theyshould not consume that chicken. That’s why we don’t use [gloves]… Customers mightbecome suspicious.”

A broiler owner mentioned barriers for handwashing with soap after every batch of chickens,

“Is it possible to wash hands with soap after every 10/15 minutes? Then it will causespending of soap worth 50 taka.... If hands are washed in every 10/15 minutes, it willdamage hands. [Workers’] hands don’t remain wet [for slaughtering/processing work]. [Afterslaughtering/processing work, the workers] wash hands with fresh water [bhalo pani] andwipe in a piece of cloth. Then no germ remains there. Using soap makes the hand soft andrisks cracking of skin.”

Figure 84: Lifting waste to dispose in high dustbins




Informants also expressed that the content showed in the docudrama did not match theirown condition or reality and hence, the recommendation did not apply to them. A broilerslaughterer who did not change his practice of cleaning shops and slaughtering place andequipments mentioned,

“It takes three hours to clean this shop. It not possible to do it daily… [The interventionteam] disseminated through song and also showed through ‘focus’ [docudrama] that how toclean the shop. But we do not have that kind of shop. Those shops were tiled and verybeautiful. Such shops can be kept clean and it also takes less time [to clean the shop].”

As a reason why handwashing with soap after every batch of chickens is no possible forthem, a broiler owner said,

“What they [intervention team] showed is alright. But they are working [processing bird]one or one and a half hour at a stretch [in the intervention]. Here [in the broiler shops] oneslaughtering or processing is carried out after 10, 15 or 20 minutes.”

Some informants mentioned that they did not find any difference in the cleaning processshowed in the docudrama and their regular cleaning practices. They reported that they alsoclean the shop same way, however, in reporting that, they skipped or did not recognize thefrequency (such as ‘daily’) or material (such as using detergent’) mentioned in therecommended cleaning. In some cases, they added their own interpretation to therecommendations. A backyard slaughterer of a tiled common slaughtering place mentionedthe intervention team recommended using gloves and mask for broiler chickens andcleaning shop for backyard, which also reflect his convenience to follow therecommendation.

Some informants expressed unwillingness to follow the recommendations. They mentionedthat they did not learn anything new from the intervention. They knew all therecommendation even before the intervention which they had already been following. Theymentioned that they would not change their practice. A backyard owner said,

“I did not see the program much… I did not consider it to be important because I do notsee the disease.”

A backyard slaughterer stated,

“There is no use of it [gloves]. I will do it [slaughtering and processing] bare hand. There issoap and I will wash hands with soap [after slaughtering and processing]. There will be noproblem.”

LIMITATIONS

Practice of preventive health measures and biosecurity measures were self-reported by theworkers. Therefore there is potential for courtesy bias. However, only 8% and 13% workersself-reported practice of preventive health measures during pre and post-interventionassessments respectively, which is not overly high, as one would expect for self-reportedbehavior. Structured observations were performed in the markets at a convenient location toget an overall idea of the prevailing practices in the market, not targeted to capture thepractice of the poultry workers participating in the study (that is the workers who wereinterviewed). icddr,b could not observe all the different high-risk activities performed by allthe workers in the market during structured observations. Structured observations wereperformed at a convenient site to be able to observe as many different types of events as




possible without hampering the activities of the poultry workers. However, self-reportedpractices are in agreement with the observed practices. How many markets observe weeklyclosures could not be cited in the report as the question was asked to individual poultryworkers. The weekly closure probably varies over time as well. Since the start of the hartals(late February 2013), the weekly market closure is not consistently observed anymore due togreat financial loss of the markets during this period of unrest.

A limitation of this study is that we collected data only from the live bird markets of Dhaka,hence the findings cannot be generalized to the live bird markets in rural or other urban sitesof the country. The baseline data was collected during two biggest religious festivals whenpoultry consumption increases than the other times of the year. Since each researcher wasassigned to observe and take notes on multiple activities in overcrowded market settings,icddr,b assumes that some events could have been missed and the frequency of eventsreported in qualitative observations could be underestimated. Nevertheless, the teamcollected data until they repeatedly received similar information; hence the data wassufficiently saturated. Unrest political situation and frequent strikes during data collectionperiod delayed field activities. During focus group discussions with the associationmembers, only one or two participants, who had poultry shops in the markets, wereinformative and vocal but the other members, who were not involved in poultry business,either refused to participate in discussion or failed to provide relevant information.Moreover, some of the potential FGD participants could not be reached due to theirinvolvement in the political movement. Nonetheless, we triangulated our findings fromindepth interviews, focus group discussions and observations.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge on recommended bio-security and preventive health measures

Though the intervention resulted in 6% absolute improvement in knowledge on at least tworecommended bio-security and preventive health measures among the poultry workers, itwas below the targeted level of 30%. Even after the intervention, poultry workers had lessknowledge on bio-security measures as compared to preventive health measures.


There was a 4% absolute increase in reported attitude after the intervention compared tobefore the intervention but this increase was also below the targeted level of 10% increase.


Among the workers who knew at least 2 recommended bio-security/preventive measures,the targeted level of 5% increase in practice of bio-security measures was reported for two(did not keep different types of poultry in the same basket/cages and observed weekly marketclosure) out of five recommended behaviours after the intervention. On the other hand,reported practice of bio-security measures decreased after the intervention for tworecommended behaviours (disposed offal and waste in specific dustbin daily and cleanedcages and shop area with water and detergent daily). None of the workers mentioned thatthey did not sell sick or dead poultry either before or after the intervention.





Among the workers who knew at least 2 recommended bio-security/preventive measures,the targeted level of 5% increase after the intervention in practice of preventive healthmeasures was reported for use of gloves and mask while slaughtering, processing ordisposal. None of the workers reported washing hands with soap after slaughtering,processing or disposal of wastes both before and after the intervention.

During the structured observations, the observed preventive health measures werecomparable with self-reported practices and no change was observed pre and post-intervention.

In conclusion, the communication intervention did not meet the intended programmatictargets. There was no significant change in the proportion of self-reported or observed use ofbiosecurity and preventive health measures by the poultry workers before and after theintervention despite improved knowledge level. The intervention improved knowledge ofavian influenza, as well as awareness on avian influenza preventive measures and hygienicpractices, particularly in perceiving cleanliness as a key measure to prevent avian influenza.Despite this increased knowledge and awareness, the intervention did not bring anysubstantial change in practices. Lack of proper infrastructure to adopt the recommendations,concern for negative financial impact and most importantly lack of self-risk perception arethe major barriers for bringing positive changes in practice.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Major barriers to implementing the recommended biosecurity and preventive healthmeasures identified during the intervention evaluation and recommendations

1. Major barriers to feasibility of recommended biosecurity and preventive healthmeasures

1. There is a lack of proper physical infrastructure in the markets to support theimplementation of the recommended biosecurity and preventive health measures.

Recommendations:

1. Three areas that needs particular attention are the provision of the followinginfrastructure components:

a) Water supply and drainage

b) Centralized slaughtering processing area

c) Appropriate waste disposal facilities or services that prevent scavenging by humansand animals.

2. For bringing immediate change to the current situation, short-term interventions can bedeveloped focusing on the most important route of bird flu transmission, i.e., contactwith blood, raw meat and offal through slaughtering and processing activity. Suchintervention should emphasize avoiding contact with blood, raw meat and offal and linkit with cleanliness, hygiene and health. To reduce soiling and contamination throughblood, raw meat and offal, several compact low-cost work station could be placed in the




poultry market for slaughtering and processing birds. This workstation should includehandwashing facilities, such as tap and liquid disposal tube, and a wide worktop to carry-out processing

At shop level, substantial improvements in physical structure is required, which includesconverting mud or broken cemented floors to washable floor, placing washing stationswith taps to ensure supply of running water and connecting or repairing the plumbingsystem to ensure functional drainage of liquid waste in every shop.

At market level, there should be a single common space for slaughtering and processingof birds in a market instead of multiple smaller common slaughtering areas. This centralarrangement should have washable floor, functional water taps and drains, as well asspecific waste disposal dustbins.

2) There is concern from the poultry workers and shop owners for a negative financialimpact due to the practice of the recommended biosecurity and preventive healthmeasures

Recommendations:

Market workers expressed concern regarding possible financial losses associated with theimplementation of the recommended biosecurity and preventive health measures.Findings from the evaluation highlighted particular current practices which would resultin financial losses if recommendations were practiced such as:

Not trading, giving away or eating sick birds (sick birds are currently sold)

Disposing of offal in dustbins (offal is currently sold)

Hindrance in wearing of PPE while slaughtering and processing birds

Time involved in frequent hand washing and daily shop cleaning (decreasesproductivity)

Expenses incurred in providing materials required to practice the recommendedmeasures

Customers expressed their concern regarding cleanliness of the shop or market and mostimportantly, for fresh, clean and disease-free healthy meat. The market workers’ concernrelates to possible financial losses and their interest in attracting customers is related totheir financial concerns.

The motivation for these two groups could be bridged by encouraging customers to buypoultry from clean shop and workers to maintain cleanliness to attract customers andprevent loss in their business. This bridging can act as a strong motivation for bothgroups to promote cleanliness and hygiene in the markets.

Shop owners should also be motivated to provide the necessary materials (such as soap,gloves, masks and aprons) needed to practice the recommended preventive healthbehaviours. Since workers’ or slaughterers’ accessibility to and use of these agentsdepend largely on shop owners’ discretion, this motivation is particularly critical.

3) There is a lack of self-risk perception and limited knowledge of avian influenza




Recommendations:

There is need to further improve knowledge on the transmission, prevention and riskperception related to avian influenza among the poultry workers and the marketassociation members.

Framing information or messages around disease severity and self-risk perception couldbe effective in improving knowledge on avian influenza among the poultry workers.

Increase in self-risk perception would support the practice of the recommendedbiosecurity and preventive health measures.

Forming separate poultry workers association in each live bird market to help inpromoting and motivating workers in adopting preventive and bio-security measuresappropriate for the context of the local markets. DLS could train two members of eachpoultry workers' association to act as educators or mobilizers.

2. Programmatic recommendations

1. Recommendations for PPE

There needs to be a careful evaluation of the PPE provided to the various workers withinthe market, to ensure that the optimal equipment, appropriate for their context andminimizing hindrance of their daily tasks is procured

2. Recommendations for the communication initiative design, messages, communicationmaterials

Certain issues should be considered for designing intervention materials and planningdissemination sessions.

a) Careful evaluation and interpretation of the qualitative findings to revise and/ordesign interventions addressing the barriers identified by the poultry workers.

b) The intervention can be designed considering poultry workers’ reality that links thecontrol measures, which are mainly maintaining cleanliness and hygiene, with theirinterest and concerns, rather than with the prevention of bird flu. This angle is likelyto be more acceptable to poultry workers particularly if there is a low self-riskperception.

For designing materials:

Difference in structure and practices for backyard and broiler shop should beincorporated in all intervention materials (docudrama, folksong, poster, banners andleaflets) to avoid the confusion among the two groups that a particular message is for the‘other’ group and not for them.

The poultry workers are not likely to follow the recommendations unless they see theirown shop in the session. The shops and materials used in the docudrama should matchthe poultry workers’ reality and context so that they realize that the messages are targetedfor them and internalize that those are doable. For example, if they have cemented floorand do not have tile floor, the drama should show how they can wash the cemented floor.

The script of docudrama or folksong should avoid using terms like ‘farm’ chicken toavoid confusion among the audience that the intervention refers only to broiler chickens.




The key message, such as risk of touching blood, raw meat and offal, should be repeatedover and over throughout the script of all intervention materials (docudrama, folksong,poster, banners and leaflets) to ensure instilling the concept in the mind of the audience.

The frequency (such as ‘daily’), materials (such as ‘hot water’, ‘soap’ and ‘detergent’) andmethod (such as washing or sweeping, instead of cleaning) for each measure should beexplicitly emphasized in all intervention materials (docudrama, folksong, poster, bannersand leaflets).

Destocking should be emphasized and explained in communicable language in themessages for promoting weekly market closure day so that the audience has a clearunderstanding of the issue, both its purpose and its benefit.

In all intervention materials (docudrama, folksong, poster, banners and leaflets), messageon separating birds should clarify whether to separate chickens and ducks or all differentbreeds/species with explanation for separating and its benefit.

For implementing the intervention:

Repeated sessions should be held monthly or bimonthly round the year through themarket committee.

Intervention organizers should invite the participants beforehand so that they can beinformed of the session and the timing and plan accordingly.

Sessions should be held at a convenient time for the poultry workers, avoiding periodswhere markets are busiest with customers.

Shop owners should be motivated to encourage their workers to attend the interventionsessions.

To facilitate the intervention, there can be an active committee in the market toimplement and monitor the intervention. This committee should be exclusivelycomposed of poultry shop owners and workers, who will be accountable for thecleanliness and hygiene conditions of the market as well as infrastructural maintenance.

The duration of the intervention needs to be more extensive if one wants to observe andquantify any translation of knowledge increase into practice. Pilot phase was for 3months only.

For monitoring and evaluation:

Intensive monitoring data collection training is needed for the government counterpartsin charge of monitoring the intervention

Several irregularities were observed during compilation of monitoring reports

Information included in the monitoring data did not support the appropriateevaluation of the content of the individual sessions

There should also be an authority or central monitoring system to guide, monitor andreport the cleanliness and hygiene condition of all the markets of the city to whichthese poultry market committees will be accountable.

DLS should consider certifying markets meeting approved cleanliness and hygenestandards.




DISSEMINATION

On April 28th, 2013 a dissemination session was organized to share the details of ‘Phase-1’of the live bird market C4D initiative. This includes sharing the details of the communicationintervention, the findings at baseline as well as the intervention evaluation. All partners andstakeholders were invited to this session. In additional to the implementing and collaboratingpartners, leadership from the Department of LivestockServices and the Ministry of Healthand Family Welfare attended the session. The findings of the pre- and post- evaluation werepresented through slide presentations by the implementation (UNICEF) and research(icddr,b) partners, as well as the recommendations which were presented by governmentpartners (IEDCR). Representatives of the Ministry of Health committed their full support forimproving the current situation in the live bird markets, which were identified as beingseverely lacking in terms of infrastructure, hygiene and sanitation. The audience participatedfully in this session and provided some important feedback on the proposedrecommendations. The major points of feedback are listed below:

1. Intervention should be tailored according to the different types of market. Not all marketsshould be expected to achieve the same level of biosecurity.

2. Dhaka City Corporation should play active role for successful implementation of theintervention.

3. Improving flooring should be included in the three key areas proposed for marketinfrastructure improvements.

4. Recommendation should include not sleeping inside poultry shops at night.

5. Too many recommendations should be avoided and recommendations should befocused on 2-3 messages only (as opposed to 9 messages included in Phase 1).

6. There should be instructions on the proper use of gloves. Using dirty/contaminatedgloves may increase risk of infection.

7. Appropriate waste disposal facilities should be provided. However, it was also stated thatappropriate waste disposal plan is a complicated issue and requires further research ordiscussion. There is no easy solution to this problem, since preventing selling of wastemay increase risk of infection through improper disposal.

8. Some participants recommended that slaughter houses should be situated outside thelive bird markets and be the place where slaughtering of birds and processing ofcarcasses would take place. However, it seems that proposing the development ofcentralized slaughtering facilities within the market may be advisable. IT is doubtful thatcustomers would be willing to go to slaughter houses outside of the markets and the lackof market slaughtering facilities may encourage customers to slaughter birds at homewhich might further increase the risk of disease transmission throughout the generalpopulation.




References

1. UNICEF Bangladesh and Mitra and Associates, Avian Influenza Knowledge, Attitudeand Practice (KAP) Survey among the General Public and Poultry Farmers inBangladesh. 2007, United Nations Children Fund: Dhaka.

2. UNICEF Bangladesh and Mitra and Associates, Avian Influenza Knowledge, Attitudeand Practice (KAP) Survey in Bangladesh. 2010, United Nations Children Fund:Dhaka.




Annexes

APPENDIX 1: Structured Observation Tool

APPENDIX 2: Structured Questionnaire

APPENDIX 3: Spot Observation Form

APPENDIX 4: Guideline for indepth interview (IDI)with member of market association

APPENDIX 5: Guideline for in-depth interview withpoultry workers

APPENDIX 6: Guideline for focus group discussion(FGD) with market association

APPENDIX 7: Guideline for exit interview withcustomers of live bird markets

APPENDIX 8: Tools for monitoring

APPENDIX 9: Communication Materials




APPENDIX 1: Structured Observation Tool

Market ID# cc

Date of observation: __ __/__ __/2012

Name of the observer:

wb‡`©kbvejx [Instructions]:

ch©‡e¶‡Yi mgq 3 N›Uv| ch©‡e¶‡Yi mgq Avcbvi †`Lv/†`L‡Z cvIqv cÖwZ e¨vP †cvwëª/nuvm-gyiwMm¤úwK©Z me NUbv I AvPiYmg~n c‡ii cvZvq wjLyb |

[The observation period is 2-3 hours. Please record events and behaviours during handlingeach batch of poultry on the structured observation page that you are able to observe].

*hw` †Kv‡bv Kvi‡Y ch©‡e¶Y eÜ Ki‡Z nq Zvn‡j cÖ¯’vb Ges wd‡i Avmvi mgq ch©‡e¶‡Y wjLyb|

[If necessary to step away from the observation, record departure and return times onobservation record.]

*Five steps of handwashing [nvZ †avqvi cuvPwU avc]:

1) Wet both hands with water [ yÕnvZ cvwb‡Z fv‡jvfv‡e wfwR‡q mvevb N‡l †bqv]

2) Rub inbetween fingers of both hands [ yÕnv‡Zi Av½y‡ji duv‡K fv‡jvfv‡e N‡l †bqv]

3) Rub palm of both hands [ yÕnv‡Zi Zvjy fv‡jvfv‡e N‡l †bqv]

4) Rinse off soap from both hands with running water [cÖevngvb cwi®‹vi cvwb w`‡q fv‡jvfv‡eay‡q †bqv]

5) Dry both hands using clean gamcha/towel [me‡k‡l cwi®‹vi MvgQv/†Zvqv‡j w`‡q yÕnvZgy‡Q †bqv]

Start time

End time




Cen

tre

for

Com

mun

icab

le D

isea

ses

icdd

r,b

[Dra

ft q

uant

itativ

e re

port

]11

/12/

2012

ïiæi

mgq

(24

N›Uv

:N›

Uv:wg

t)

Star

t Ti

me

(24

hr:

HH

:MM

)

†cvwë

ªi ai

b:

Type

of

poul

try:

1.eªq

jvi

[Bro

iler]

2.KK [C

ock]

3.†`

wk g

yiwM

[Indi

geno

us chic

ken]

4.nv

um

[Duc

k]

5.Ke

yZi

[Pig

eon]

6.†K

v‡qj

[Qua

il]

7.A

b¨vb

¨(D

‡jøL

Kiæb

)

Oth

er,

Spec

ify

ch©‡e

¶Y

mg~n:

Expo

sure

:

1.R

ev&B

Kiv

[Sla

ught

erin

g]

2.nv

Z w`

‡qcv

jK/P

vgov

wQjv

‡bv

[Man

ual

defe

athe

ring]

3.†g

wkb

w`‡q

cvjK

/Pvg

ovwQ

jv‡b

v

[Def

eath

erin

gby

mac

hine

]

4.bv

wofuyw

o †e

iKi

v

[Evi

scer

atio

n]

¯’vbt

Plac

e of

activ

ity:

1.†`

vKv‡b

iwf

Z‡i

wbw`

©óR

vqMv

q

[In a

desi

gnat

edpl

ace

insi

de a

shop

]

2.†`

vKv‡b

iev

B‡i

wbw`

©óR

vqMv

q

[In a

desi

gnat

edpl

ace

outs

ide

ash

op]

3.A

b¨vb

¨(D

‡jøL

Kiæb

)

Oth

er,

Spec

ify

Kqw

U nv

m-gyi

wM wb

‡qK

vR K

‡i‡Q

bt

Num

ber

ofpo

ultr

yha

ndle

d in

each

bat

ch:

wZwb

wKD‡

jøwLZ

†K

v‡bv

cÖwZ

i¶vg

~jKe¨

e’v w

b‡q‡

QbwK

?

Did

tak

ean

y of

the

follo

win

gpr

otec

tive

mea

sure

s?

1.gv

¯‹

[Mas

k]

2.Møv

fm

[Glo

ves]

3.gv

¯‹ I

Møvfm

[Mas

k &

Glo

ves]

4.A

¨vcÖb

[Apr

on]

5.eyU [B

oot]

6.wK

Qy †b

bwb

[Non

e]

7.A

b¨vb

¨(D

‡jøL

Kiæb

)

Oth

er,

Spec

ify

cvjK

/bvwo

fuywo/

Ab¨

vb¨

Ave

R©bv

†d

jevi

mgq

wZwb

wK D

‡jøwL

Z †

Kvb

cÖwZ

i¶vg

~jK e

ë¯’v

wb‡q

‡Qb

wK?

Did

tak

e an

y of

the

follo

win

g pr

otec

tive

mea

sure

s du

ring

disp

osal

?

1.gv

¯‹

[Mas

k]

2.Møv

fm

[Glo

ves]

3.gv

¯‹ I

Møvf

m

[Mas

k &

Glo

ves]

4.A

¨vcÖb

[Apr

on]

5.eyU [B

oot]

6.wK

Qy †b

bwb

[Non

e]

7.A

b¨vb

¨ (D‡

jøLKi

æb)

Oth

er, S

peci

fy

8.cÖ‡

hvR

¨ bq

[Not

app

licab

le]

KvR

†k‡

l nv

Zay‡

qwQ‡

jv wK

?

Wer

e ha

nds

was

hed

afte

rpe

rfor

min

gth

e ac

tivity

?

1.bv [N

o]

2.nu¨

v

[Yes

]

3.†`

L‡Z

cvwi

bvB

[Cou

ldno

tob

serv

e]

nvZ

†av

qvi

¯’vbt

Plac

e of

han

dw

ash:

1.gv

‡K©‡U

iwf

Z‡i

wKš‘

†`vK

v‡bi

evB‡

i nv

Z†a

vqvi

wbw`

©óR

vqMv

q

[In a

desi

gnat

edpl

ace

inth

e m

arke

tou

tsid

e th

esh

op]

2.†`

vKv‡b

iwf

Z‡i

nvZ

†avq

vi wb

w`©ó

Rvq

Mvq

[In a

desi

gnat

edpl

ace

insi

de th

esh

op]

3.†`

vKv‡b

iev

B‡i

evjw

Zev

Ab¨

†Kv

bcv

‡Î

[In a

buck

et o

rco

ntai

ner

outs

ide

the

nvZ

†av

qvi

¯’v‡b

mve

vbA

v‡Q wK

?

Is s

oap

avai

labl

eat

the

plac

e of

hand

was

h?

1.bv [N

o]

2.nu¨

v

[Yes

]

3.†`

L‡Z

cvwi

bvB

[Cou

ldno

tob

serv

e]

4.cÖ‡

hvR

¨bq

[Not

appl

icab

le]

nvZ

†av

qvi

DcK

iY

Han

dw

ashi

ngm

ater

ials

:

1.ïa

y cvwb

[Wat

eron

ly]

2.mv

evb

[Soa

p]

3.¸o

v mve

vb

[Det

erge

nt]

4.A

b¨vb

¨(D

‡jøL

Kiæb

)

[Oth

er,

Spec

ify]

5.cÖ‡

hvR

¨ bq

[Not

appl

icab

le]

6.†`

L‡Z

cvwi

bvB

[Cou

ld n

otob

serv

e]

nvZ

†av

qvi

cuvPw

U av

c †g

‡bnv

Z a

y‡q‡Q

b

All

five

step

s* f

orha

nd w

ashi

ngob

serv

ed:

1.bv [N

o]

2.nu¨

v

[Yes

]

3.†`

L‡Z

cvwi

bvB

[Cou

ld n

otob

serv

e]

4.cÖ‡

hvR

¨ bq

[Not

appl

icab

le]

gšÍe¨

Com

men

t

KvR

†kl

nIqv

i mg

q(2

4 N›

Uv:

N›Uv

:wgt)

End

Tim

e

(24

hr:

HH

:MM

)

cvjK

/bvwo

fywo/

Ab¨

vb¨ A

veR

©bv wK

K‡i

‡Qb/

†Kv_

vq†d

‡j‡Q

b?

Whe

re w

ere

the

offa

ls/w

aste

disp

osed

?

1.gv

‡K©‡U

i wf

Z‡i

gqjv

†dj

viwb

w`©ó

Rvq

Mv/W

v÷we

b

[In a

desi

gnat

edpl

ace/

Dus

tbin

in th

e m

arke

t]

2.†`

vKv‡b

i wf

Z‡i

wbw`

©ó R

vqMv

/cv

Î/ev

jwZ‡

Z

[In a

desi

gnat

edpl

ace/

cont

aine

r/b

ucke

t ins

ide

the

shop

]

3.†`

vKv‡b

i ev

B‡i

wbw`

©ó R

vqMv

/cv

Î/ev

jwZ‡

Z

[des

igna

ted

plac

e/co

ntai

ner

/buc

ket o

utsi

deth

e sh

op]

4.†K

v_vI

†d‡

jbwb

[Did

not

disp

ose]

µwg

K b

s

SL

No

for

each

batc

h of

activ

ity




Cen

tre

for

Com

mun

icab

le D

isea

ses

icdd

r,b

[Dra

ft q

uant

itativ

e re

port

]11

/12/

2012

shop

]

4.†`

vKv‡b

iwf

Z‡i

evjw

Zev

Ab¨

†Kv

bcv

‡Î

[In a

buck

et o

rco

ntai

ner

insi

de th

eth

e sh

op]

5.A

b¨vb

¨(D

‡jøL

Kiæb

)

Oth

er,

Spec

ify

6.cÖ‡

hvR

¨ bq

[Not

appl

icab

le]

5.A

b¨vb

¨ (D‡

jøLKi

æb)

[Oth

er,

Spec

ify]

6.cÖ‡

hvR

¨ bq

[Not

appl

icab

le]

:01

:02

:03

:04

:05

:06

:07




Cen

tre

for

Com

mun

icab

le D

isea

ses

icdd

r,b

[Dra

ft q

uant

itativ

e re

port

]11

/12/

2012

:08

:09

:10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20




APPENDIX 2: Structured Questionnaire

International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b)

Research, monitoring and evaluation of AI communication initiative among poultryworkers in live bird markets in Dhaka city area, Bangladesh

1. Interview information:

1.1 gv‡K©U Gi AvB. wW. [Market ID]:

1.2 mv¶vrKvi MÖnYKvixi bvg [Name of the interviewer]: ………….…………………………............……

1.3 ZvwiL [Date of interview]: (dd /mm /yy)

1.4 †cvwëª Kgx©/KwgwU m`m¨: (1= †cvwëª Kgx© [[Poultry worker], 2= KwgwU m`m¨

[Association Association member])

1.5 bvg [Name]: ………………………………………………………………………….…....

1.6 AvB wW # [ID]: ………………………………………………………........................…

1.7 wVKvbv (¯’vqx I eZ©gvb wVKvbv) [Address of the worker (present and permanent): …………………

...............................................................................................................................................................

1.8 †dvb b¤î [Phone number]: …………………………………………………………

Socio-demographic information:

Information on exposure to poultry:

Centre for Communicable Diseases

icddr,b [Draft quantitative report] 11/12/2012

2.1 eqm [Age in years] in completed years

2.2 wj½ [Sex] 0= gwnjv [Female]

1= cyiæl [Male]

2.3 Avcwb K‡Zv eQi ¯‹z‡j covïbv m¤úbœ K‡i‡Qb [Howmany years of schooling have you completed]?

in completed years

3.1 Avcwb KZw`b a‡i nuvm-gyiwM wb‡q KvR Ki‡Qb(me©‡gvU K‡Zv eQi) [How long have you beenworking with poultry (in total)]?

gvm [Month]






3.2 Avcwb w`‡b K‡Zv N›Uv GB evRv‡i KvR K‡ib [Howlong do you work in the market daily]?

N›Uv [Hours]

3.3 Avcwb wK ai‡bi †cvwëª wb‡q KvR K‡ib [What type of poultry do you handle]?

a. eªqjvi [Broiler] 0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]b. KK [Cock]

c. †`wk gyiwM [Indigenous chicken]

d. nvum [Duck]

e. KeyZi [Pigeon]

f. †Kv‡qj [Quail]

g. Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb) [Other (specify):

3.4 Avcwb nvum-gyiwM wb‡q wK ai‡bi KvR K‡ib? (me¸‡jv D‡jøL Kiæb Ges wUK wPý w`b) [Whatkind of tasks do you do when you handle poultry? (read and select all that apply)]

a. nvum-gyiwM wewµ Kiv [Sell poultry] 0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]b. nvum-gyiwM cwienb Kiv [Transport poultry]

c. nvum-gyiwMi Lvevi †`qv [Feed poultry]

d. Lvev‡ii cvÎ cwi®‹vi Kiv [Clean feeding tray]

e. cvwbi cvÎ cwi®‹vi Kiv [Clean watercontainer]

f. nvum-gyiwM RevB Kiv [Slaughter poultry]

g. nvum-gyiwMi cvjK Qvov‡bv [Defeather poultry]

h. nvum-gyiwM †K‡U bvwofuywo Avjv`v Kiv [Evisceratepoultry]

i. nvum-gyiwMi weóv/gj msMÖn ev cwienb Kiv[Collect or transport feces]

j. weóv/gj cwi®‹vi Kiv [Cleaning feces]

k. Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb) [Other (specify):






Knowledge questions:

4.1 evW© d¬z m¤ú©‡K Avcwb wKQz ï‡b‡Qb wK? [Have youheard about bird flu]?

0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes] (Ifanswer is 0, Skip toSection 5)

4.2 Avcwb †Kv_v †_‡K evW© d¬z m¤ú©‡K ï‡b‡Qb [From where have you heard about bird flu]?

a. †Uwjwfkb [Television] 0= D‡jøL K‡ib wb[Not mentioned]

1= D‡jøL K‡i‡Qb[Mentioned]

8= cÖ‡hvR¨ bq[Not applicable]

b. cÖwZ‡ekx/eÜz [Neighbour/friend]

c. ˆ`wbK cwÎKv [Newspaper]

d. AvZ¥xq ¯^Rb [Relatives]

e. †iwWI [Radio]

f. evRvi [At the market]

g. cïwPwKrmv Kg©x [Veterinary workers]

h. Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb) [Other (specify):

4.3 evW© d¬z wK w`‡q nq? DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv, Z‡e wRÁvmv Kiæb Avi wKQz?Õ [What isbird flu caused by]? (Do not prompt or read the options, but ask ‘anything else?’)

a. RxevYy [A germ] 0= D‡jøL K‡ib wb[Not mentioned]



b. fvBivm [A virus]

c. Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb) [Other (specify):

d. Rvwbbv [Don’t know]

4.4 evW© d¬z wK nuvm-gyiwM †_‡K nuvm-gyiwM‡Z Qov‡Z cv‡i[Can bird flu be transmitted from poultry topoultry]?

0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]


9= Rvwbbv[Don’t know]

4.5 evW© d¬z n‡j †cvjwUª/nuvm-gyiwMi Kx Kx j¶Y/DcmM© †`Lv †`q? DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv, Z‡ewRÁvmv Kiæb Avi wKQy?Õ [What are the symptoms of bird flu in poultry]? (Do notprompt or read the options, but ask ‘anything else?’)

a. k¦vm-cªk¦v‡m Amyweav [Difficulty in breathing] 0= D‡jøL K‡ib wb[Not mentioned]






b. D‡¯‹vLy‡¯‹v cvjK [Ruffled feather] 1= D‡jøL K‡i‡Qb[Mentioned]


c. ¶zavg›`v I ~e©jZv [Lack of appetite andweakness]

d. AwZwi³ Z…òv [Excessive thirst]e. wWgcvov K‡g hvIqv [Reduced egg

production]f. cvZjv †Lvjm hy³ wWg [Thin egg shell]g. SuzwU dz‡j hvIqv [Swelling of the combs]h. Mjvi †Svjv‡bv jvj gvsmj wcÛ dz‡j hvq

[Swelling of the wattles]i. SuywUi AMÖfvM bxj is n‡q hvq

[Bluish/cyanotic combs]

j. SuywU‡Z `vbv`vbv i³we› y †`Lv †`q[Bleeding/hemorrhage in the combs]

k. cv Ges nvUyi ga¨fv‡Mi As‡k cÖPzi i³ _v‡K[Bleeding/hemorrhage in the area betweenhocks and feet (shank)]

l. Rvwbbv [Don’t know]m. Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb) [Other (specify):

4.6 evW© d¬z AvµvšÍ †cvjwUªi Kx Kx wRwbl A_ev Ab¨vb¨ †Kvb wRwbl evW© d¬zz Qov‡Z cv‡i? DËi¸‡jvc‡o †kvbv‡eb bv, Z‡e wRÁvmv Kiæb Avi wKQy?Õ [What things of infected poultry ormaterials can spread bird flu]? (Do not prompt or read the options, but ask ‘anythingelse?’)a. nuvm-gyiwMi weóv/gjg~Î [Excreta of poultry] 0= D‡jøL K‡ib wb

[Not mentioned]



b. nuvm-gyiwMi jvjv [Saliva of poultry]

c. nuvm-gyiwMi bvK †_‡K †ei nIqv/wbM©Zcvwb/Zij c`v_© [Nasal secretion of poultry]

d. nuvm-gyiwMi LuvPv/Szwo [Poultry cage/basket]

e. Lvev‡ii cvÎ [Poultry feeding tray]

f. nuvm-gyiwMi cvwb LvIqvi cvÎ [Poultry watertray]

g. wWg [Eggs]

h. wWg ivLvi cvÎ [Egg container]

i. evW© d¬z RxevYyevwn Kvco A_ev RyZv[Contaminated cloth or shoes]

j. nuvm-gyiwM enbKvix cwienb [Poultrytransporting vehicle]






k. Rvwbbv [Don’t know]l. Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb) [Other (specify):

4.7 evW© d¬z wK †cvjwUª/nuvm-gyiwM †_‡K gvby‡l Qov‡Z cv‡i?[Can bird flu be transmitted from poultry tohuman]?

0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]

9= Rvwbbv[Don’t know](If answer is 0 or 9,Skip to quesstion 4.8)

4.7a wKfv‡e evW© d¬z †cvjwUª/nuvm-gyiwM †_‡K gvby‡l Qov‡Z cv‡i? DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv, Z‡ewRÁvmv Kiæb Avi wKQy?Õ [How can bird flu transmit from poultry to human?] (Do notprompt or read the options, but ask ‘anything else?’)a. Amy ’ nuvm-gyiwMi ms¯ú‡k© Avm‡j [Contact

with sick poultry]0= D‡jøL K‡ib wb[Not mentioned]



b. g„Z nuvm-gyiwMi ms¯ú‡k© Avm‡j [Contact withdead poultry]

c. g„Z/Amy¯’ nuvm-gyiwMi Dw”Qó/cvjK/bvwofuywoims¯ú‡k© Avm‡j [Contact with offal ofsick/dead poultry]

d. g„Z/Amy ’ nuvm-gyiwMi i‡³i ms¯ú‡k© Avm‡j[Contact with blood of sick/dead poultry]

e. g„Z/Amy ’ nuvm-gyiwMi gjgy‡Îi ms¯ú‡k© Avm‡j[Contact with excreta of sick/dead poultry]

f. Rvwbbv [Don’t know]g. Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb) [Other (specify):

4.8 evW© d¬z gvby‡li gvivZ¥K Amy ’Zv Ki‡Z cv‡i wK [Canbird flu cause serious illness in human]?

0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]



4.9 Avcwb wK evW© d¬z †iv‡M AvµvšÍ n‡Z cv‡ib [Can yoube affected/infected by bird flu]?

0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]








4.10 evW© d¬z cÖwZ‡iva Kiv hvq wK [Can bird flu beprevented]?

0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]


9= Rvwbbv[Don’t know](If answer is 0 or 9,Skip to question 4.11)

4.10a wKfv‡e evW© d¬z cÖwZ‡iva Kiv hvq? DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv, Z‡e wRÁvmv Kiæb Avi wKQy?Õ[How bird flu can be prevented]? (Do not prompt or read the options, but ask‘anything else?’)

a. Amy ’ nuvm-gyiwM ¯úk© bv Kiv/bv aiv [Avoidtouching sick poultry]

0= D‡jøL K‡ib wb[Not mentioned]



b. g„Z nuvm-gyiwM ¯úk© bv Kiv/bv aiv [Avoidtouching dead poultry]

c. Amy ’ A_ev g„Z nuvm-gyiwM wewµ bv Kiv [Avoidselling sick or dead poultry]

d. nuvm-gyiwM aivi mgq Møvfm civ [Wear glovesduring handling poultry]

e. nuvm-gyiwM aivi mgq gv¯‹ civ [Wear masksduring handling poultry]

f. nuvm-gyiwMGes wWg ¯úk©/aivi c‡i mvevb w`‡qnvZ †avqv [Washing hands with soap andwater after touching poultry and eggs]

g. evW© d¬z †iv‡M AvµvšÍ nuvm-gyiwMiDw”Qó/cvjK/bvwofuywo, i³ ev gjgyÎ ¯úk© bvKiv/bv aiv [Avoid touching offal, bloodand excreta of infected poultry]

h. Rvwbbv [Don’t know]i. Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb) [Other (specify):

4.11 Avgiv wK evW© d¬z AvµvšÍ nvum-gyiwM †L‡Z cvwi [Canwe eat bird flu infected poultry]?

0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]








Practice questions:

Preventive health measures:

5.1 nvum-gyiwM wb‡q KvR Kivi mgq Avcwb wK †Kv‡bvcÖwZ‡iva eë¯’v MÖnY K‡ib [Do you use anypreventive measures when handling poultry]?

0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]

8= cÖ‡hvR¨ bq[Not applicable](If answer is 0, Skipto question 5.2)

5.1a nvum-gyiwM wb‡q †Kvb †Kvb KvR Kivi mgq Avcwb †Kv‡bv cÖwZ‡iva eë¯’v MÖnY K‡ib?DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv, Z‡e wRÁvmv Kiæb Avi wKQy?Õ [During which activities doyou use any preventive measures when handling poultry]? (Do not prompt orread the options, but ask ‘anything else?’)a. nuvm-gyiwM RevB Kivi mgq [During

slaughtering poultry]0= D‡jøL K‡ib wb[Not mentioned]



b. nuvm-gyiwMi cvjK Qvov‡bv ev bvwofuywo Avjv`vKivi mgq [During defeathing andevisceration of poultry]

c. Wv÷web I †`vKvb cwi®‹vi Kivi mgq [Duringcleaning of dustbin and shops]

d. nuvm-gyiwMi Dw”Qó/cvjK/bvwofuywo/AveR©bv†djvi mgq [During disposal ofoffal/wastes]

e. Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb) [Other (specify):

5.1b nuvm-gyiwM RevB Kivi mgq Avcwb Kx Kx cÖwZ‡iva eë¯’v MÖnY K‡ib Ges K‡Zv Nb Nb Zveënvi K‡ib ev c‡ib? DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv, Z‡e wRÁvmv Kiæb ÔAvi wKQz?Õ [Whatdo you use during slaughtering poultry and how frequently do you use it? (Do notprompt or read the options, but ask ‘anything else?’)a. Møvfm cwi (Avcwb wK Zv memgq c‡ib/gv‡S

gv‡S c‡ib/KLbI KLbI ev K`vwPr c‡ib)[Wear gloves (Do you always wear/oftenwear or seldom wear it)]


1= memgq (100%mgq )[Always (100% time)]

2= gv‡S gv‡S(≥≥50%mgq)[Often (≥≥50% time)]

3= KLbI KLbI/K`vwPr (≤≤50%mgq)

b. gv¯‹ cwi (Avcwb wK Zv memgq c‡ib/gv‡Sgv‡S c‡ib/KLbI KLbI ev K`vwPr c‡ib)[Wear masks (Do you always wear/oftenwear or seldom wear it)]

c. A¨vcÖb cwi (Avcwb wK Zv memgq c‡ib/gv‡Sgv‡S c‡ib/KLbI KLbI ev K`vwPr c‡ib)[Wear apron (Do you always wear/oftenwear or seldom wear it)]






d. eyU cwi (Avcwb wK Zv memgq c‡ib/gv‡S gv‡Sc‡ib/KLbI KLbI ev K`vwPr c‡ib) [Wearboot (Do you always wear/often wear orseldom wear it)]

[Seldom (≤≤50% time)]


e. Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb) (Avcwb wK Zv memgqc‡ib/gv‡S gv‡S c‡ib/KLbI KLbI ev K`vwPrc‡ib) [Other (specify) (Do you alwayswear/often wear or seldom wear it):

5.1c nuvm-gyiwMi cvjK Qvov‡bv ev bvwofuywo Avjv`v Kivi mgq Avcwb Kx Kx cÖwZ‡iva eë¯’v MÖnYK‡ib Ges K‡Zv Nb Nb Zv eënvi K‡ib ev c‡ib? DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv, Z‡ewRÁvmv Kiæb Avi wKQy?Õ [What do you use during defeathering and evisceration ofpoultry and how frequently do you use it?] (Do not prompt or read the options,but ask ‘anything else?’)a. Møvfm cwi (Avcwb wK Zv memgq c‡ib/gv‡S



1= memgq (100% mgq)[Always (100% time)]


3= KLbI KLbI/K`vwPr(≤≤50%mgq)[Seldom (≤≤50% time)]






5.1d Wv÷web I †`vKvb cwi®‹vi Kivi mgq Avcwb Kx Kx cÖwZ‡iva eë ’v MÖnB K‡ib Ges K‡Zv NbNb Zv eënvi K‡ib ev c‡ib? DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv, Z‡e wRÁvmv Kiæb Avi wKQy?Õ[What do you use during cleaning dustbins and shop area and how frequently doyou use it? (Do not prompt or read the options, but ask ‘anything else?’)

a. Møvfm cwi (Avcwb wK Zv memgq c‡ib/gv‡Sgv‡S c‡ib/KLbI KLbI ev K`vwPr c‡ib)[Wear gloves (Do you always wear/oftenwear or seldom wear it)]


1= memgq (100% mgq)[Always (100% time)]







2= gv‡S gv‡S

(≥≥50%mgq) [Often(≥≥50% time)]

3= KLbIKLbI/K`vwPr(≤≤50%mgq) [Seldom(≤≤50% time)]

8= cÖ‡hvR¨ bq [Notapplicable]




5.1e nuvm-gyiwMi Dw”Qó/cvjK/bvwofuywo/AveR©bv †djvi mgq Avcwb Kx Kx cÖwZ‡iva eë¯’v MÖnYK‡ib Ges K‡Zv Nb Nb Zv eënvi K‡ib ev c‡ib? DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv, Z‡ewRÁvmv Kiæb Avi wKQy? [What do you use during disposal of offal/waste and howfrequently do you use it? (Do not prompt or read the options, but ask ‘anythingelse’?)

a. Møvfm cwi (Avcwb wK Zv memgq c‡ib/gv‡Sgv‡S c‡ib/KLbI KLbI ev K`vwPr c‡ib)[Wear gloves (Do you always wear/oftenwear or seldom wear it)]


1= memgq (100%mgq)[Always (100% time)]


3= KLbI KLbI/K`vwPr (≤≤50%mgq)[Seldom (≤≤50% time)]











5.1f 5.1a e. †Z Ab¨ †h Kv‡Ri K_v D‡jøL K‡i‡Qb Zv e‡j cÖkœ Kiæb, Zv Kivi mgq Avcwb KxKx cÖwZ‡iva eë¯’v MÖnY K‡ib Ges K‡Zv Nb Nb Zv eënvi K‡ib ev c‡ib? DËi¸‡jv c‡o†kvbv‡eb bv, Z‡e wRÁvmv Kiæb Avi wKQy?Õ [What do you use during the ........... (tellthe work mentioned in 5.1a e) and how frequently do you use it? (Do not promptor read the options, but ask ‘anything else?’)a. Møvfm cwi (Avcwb wK Zv memgq c‡ib/gv‡S



1= memgq (100%mgq)[Always (100% time)]


3= KLbI KLbI/K`vwPr (≤≤50%mgq)[Seldom (≤≤50% time)]





e. Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb) (Avcwb wK memgqc‡ib/gv‡S gv‡S c‡ib/KLbI KLbI ev K`vwPrc‡ib Nb Zv eënvi K‡ib) [Other (specify)(Do you always wear/often wear orseldom wear it):

Bio-security measures:

5.2 Avcwb wK Amy ’ nvmu-gyiwM wewµ K‡ib [Do you sellsick poultry]?

0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]


5.3 Avcwb wK g„Z nvmu-gyiwM wewµ K‡ib [Do you selldead poultry]?

0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]







5.4 Avcwb wK nvmu-gyiwM ev wewfbœ ai‡bi gyiwM GKB Szwo/LvuPvq iv‡Lb [Do you keep different types ofpoultry in the same basket/cage]?

0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]


5.5 Avcbv‡ì evRv‡i wK nuvm-gyiwMi Dw”Qó/cvjK/bvwofuywoi/AveR©bv †djvi Rb¨ †Kvb wbw`©ó ¯’vb Av‡Q[Do you have any designated place in themarket for disposing offal/waste]?

0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]


5.6 Avcwb wK cÖwZw`b Dw”Qó/cvjK/bvwofuywo/AveR©bv†d‡jb [Do you dispose offal/waste daily]?

0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]


5.6a †Kv_vq †d‡jb (D‡jøL Kiæb) [Where do you dispose (specify)]5.7 Avcwb wK Szwo/LvuPv ev †`vKvb I Gi Avkcvk cwi®‹vi

K‡ib [Do you clean cages/baskets and shoparea]?

0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]


5.7a KZevi Avcwb Szwo/LvuPv ev †`vKvb I Gi Avkcvkcwi®‹vi K‡ib [How often do you clean thecages/baskets and shop area]?

1= cÖwZw`b [daily]

2= mßv‡n GKevi[weekly]

3= gv‡m GKevi[monthly]

4= gqjv n‡j[Whenever gets dirty]

5= Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøLKiæb)[Other (specify)]


5.7b cwi®‹vi Kivi Rb¨ Avcwb wK eënvi K‡ib? DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv, Z‡e wRÁvmv KiæbAvi wKQyÕ [What do you use for cleaning]? (Do not prompt or read the options, butask ‘anything else?’)

a. ïay cvwb [Water alone] 0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]b. cvwb Ges wWUvi‡RÈ [Water and detergent]






c. RxevYybvkK [Disinfectant] 8= cÖ‡hvR¨ bq[Not applicable]d. ïaygvÎ Svoy †`B [Sweep/dust only]

e. Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb) [Other (specify):5.8 Avcbvi †`vKv‡b wK wb‡gœvwjwLZ wRwbm¸‡jv Av‡Q? [Do you have the following

available in your shop]?

a. mvevb [Soap] 0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]


b. A¨vcÖb [Apron]

c. Møvfm [Gloves]

d. gv¯‹ [Masks]

5.9 Avcbv‡ì gv‡K©‡U/†`vKv‡b mvßvwnK †Kv‡bv eÜ w`bgvbv nq wK [Do you observe weekly marketclosure day in your market/shop]?

0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]

5.9a mvßvwnK e‡Üi w`b Avcwb/Avcbvi †`vKv‡b nuvm-gyiwM†ePv‡Kbv K‡ib/nq wK [Do you/your shop tradepoultry on weekly closure day]?

0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]


5.10 mvßvwnK e‡Üi w`b Avcwb/Avcbviv †Kv‡bv wKQz/wRwblcwi®‹vi K‡ib wK? [Do you clean anything ormaterials on weekly closure day?]

0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]


5.10a hw` nu v nq, Zvn‡j †Kvb wRwbl/Kx Kx cwi®‹vi K‡ib? DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv, Z‡ewRÁvmv Kiæb Avi wKQz? ‘[If yes, which things or materials do you clean on weeklyclosure day?] (Do not prompt or read the options, but ask ‘anything else?’)

a. †`vKv‡bi †g‡S [Floor of the shop] 0= bv [No]

1= n¨vu [Yes]


b. †`vKv‡bi †`qvj [Wall of the shop]

c. nuvm-gyiwMi Lvev‡ii cvÎ [Poultry feedingtray]

d. nuvm-gyiwMi cvwb LvIqvi cvÎ [Poultry watertray]

e. nuvm-gyiwMi IRb gvcvi hš¿ [Weighingmachine]

f. nuvm-gyiwM RevB Kivi Qywi [Knife forslaughtering]

g. nuvm-gyiwMi cvjK Qvov‡bvi †gwkb[Defeathering machine]

h. Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb) [Other (specify):






Thank you for your participation and cooperation. (AskMÖnY Ges mn‡hvwMZv Kivi RbÄvcbv‡K abëv`)

…………………………………………………………..

Signature of Research Assistant

Date: …………………………………………………




Cen

tre

for

Com

mun

icab

le D

isea

ses

icdd

r,b

[Dra

ft q

uant

itativ

e re

port

]11

/12/

2012

APP

END

IX 3

:Sp

ot O

bser

vatio

n Fo

rm

Dat

a co

de:

Dat

e:

Tim

e of

dat

a co

llect

ion:

Mar

ket a

t a g

lanc

e:

Mar

ket h

our:

Busy

hou

r:

Mar

ket c

losu

re d

ay:

Num

ber

of p

oultr

y sh

op:

Num

ber

of s

taff

wor

king

in th

e m

arke

t:

Suita

ble

time

for

IDI:

Nam

e of

the

Rese

arch

ers:

Map

of t

he m

arke

t:




1a-D

eshi

, 1b-

Paki

stan

i, 2a

-Bro

iler,

2b-L

ayer

, 3a-

Duc

k, 3

b-G

eese

, 4-P

igeo

n, 5

-Koe

l

Cen

tre

for

Com

mun

icab

le D

isea

ses

icdd

r,b

[Dra

ft q

uant

itativ

e re

port

]11

/12/

2012

1.In

form

atio

n on

bir

d sp

ecie

s, s

epar

atin

g ar

rang

emen

t an

d bi

rd k

eepi

ng p

lace

s:

Type

of b

irdso

ldBi

rds

kept

inse

para

tear

rang

emen

t

Bird

kep

tto

geth

erBi

rds

kept

inpe

n pl

ace/

onflo

or

No.

of w

orke

r

Bam

boo

Plas

ticM

etal

Type

of c

age

# of

shop

Sh1

Sh2

Sh3

Sh4

Sh5

Sh6

Sh7

Sh8

Sh9

Sh10




2a. Slaughtering arrangement in the market

2b. Slaughtering arrangement in individual shops

Total number of common slaughteringarrangement

Total number of shop with separateslaughtering arrangement

Sh1

Yes

No (if no skip to table 3)

# ofShop

Sh1

Sh2

Sh3

Sh4

Sh5

Sh6

Sh7

Sh8

Sh9

Sh10






Cen

tre

for

Com

mun

icab

le D

isea

ses

icdd

r,b

[Dra

ft q

uant

itativ

e re

port

]11

/12/

2012

2c.

Det

ails

of

com

mon

sla

ught

erin

g pl

aces

in t

he m

arke

t

Presence of slaughtering knife

Sl Com

1

Com

2

Com

3

Com

4

Com

5

Presence of slaughtering corner*

Slaughtering on floor

Slaughtering on flapping drum

Presence of flapping drum/Bucket

Presence of flapping cone

Presence of dressing machine

Presence of processing tray

Processing on floor

Presence of offal disposal drum/bucket

Presence of offal/feather disposalbag

Disposing in open place

Presence of liquid waste disposaldrain

Presence of liquid waste disposalcontainer

Presence of water storage vessel

Presence of water boiling place

Presence of water boilingcontainer

Presence of water source point(tap/pipe)

Number of slaughterer




Cen

tre

for

Com

mun

icab

le D

isea

ses

icdd

r,b

[Dra

ft q

uant

itativ

e re

port

]11

/12/

2012

2d.

Det

ails

of

slau

ghte

ring

arr

ange

men

t in

indi

vidu

al s

hops

Presence of slaughtering knife

# of

shop

Sh1

Sh2

Sh3

Sh4

Sh5

Sh6

Sh7

Sh8

Sh9

Sh10

Presence of slaughtering corner*

Slaughtering on floor

Slaughtering on flapping drum

Presence of flapping drum/Bucket

Presence of flapping cone

Presence of dressing machine

Presence of processing tray

Processing on floor

Presence of offal disposal drum/bucket

Presence of offal/feather disposalbag

Disposing in open place

Presence of liquid waste disposaldrain

Presence of liquid waste disposalcontainer

Presence of water storage vessel

Presence of water boiling place

Presence of water boilingcontainer

Presence of water source point(tap/pipe)




Cen

tre

for

Com

mun

icab

le D

isea

ses

icdd

r,b

[Dra

ft q

uant

itativ

e re

port

]11

/12/

2012

3a.

Slau

ghte

ring

and

han

dwas

hing

eve

nts

and

clea

ning

and

han

dwas

hing

arr

ange

men

t fo

r co

mm

on s

laug

hter

ing

plac

es

# of

sho

p

Sh1

Sh2

Sh3

Sh4

Sh5

Sh6

Sh7

Sh8

Sh9

Sh10

Slaughtering occurred

Washing hand with soap/detergent

Rinsing hand with running water

Rinsing hand with water frombucket

Rinsing hand with blood mixedwater

Wiping hand without washing/rinsing

Drying hand after slaughtering

Presence of soap or detergent forhand washing

Presence of hand wiping gamcha

Presence of gloves

Presence of mask

Presence of detergent

Presence of broom

Presence of bleaching

Presence of scrub




Cen

tre

for

Com

mun

icab

le D

isea

ses

icdd

r,b

[Dra

ft q

uant

itativ

e re

port

]11

/12/

2012

3b.

Slau

ghte

ring

and

han

dwas

hing

eve

nts

and

clea

ning

and

han

dwas

hing

arr

ange

men

t of

indi

vidu

al s

hop

Sl Com

1

Com

2

Com

3

Com

4

Com

5

Com

6

Com

7

Com

8

Com

9

Com

10

Slaughtering occurred

Washing hand with soap/detergent

Rinsing hand with running water

Rinsing hand with water frombucket

Rinsing hand with blood mixedwater

Wiping hand without washing/rinsing

Drying hand after slaughtering

Presence of soap or detergent forhand washing

Presence of hand wiping gamcha

Presence of gloves

Presence of mask

Presence of detergent

Presence of broom

Presence of bleaching

Presence of scrub




Cen

tre

for

Com

mun

icab

le D

isea

ses

icdd

r,b

[Dra

ft q

uant

itativ

e re

port

]11

/12/

2012

4.In

form

atio

n on

sic

k an

d de

ad b

ird

# of

sho

pSi

ck B

ird

Dea

d Bi

rd

Pres

ence

of s

ick

bird

:Ye

sN

oPr

esen

ce o

f dea

d bi

rd:

Yes

No

Des

crip

tion

of th

e lo

catio

n of

sic

k bi

rdN

umbe

r of

sick

bird

Num

ber

ofde

ad b

irdD

escr

iptio

n of

the

loca

tion

of d

ead

bird

Sh1

Sh2

Sh3

Sh4

Sh5

Sh6

Sh7

Sh8

Sh9

Sh10




Cen

tre

for

Com

mun

icab

le D

isea

ses

icdd

r,b

[Dra

ft q

uant

itativ

e re

port

]11

/12/

2012

5.M

arke

t ar

rang

emen

t fo

r si

ck a

nd d

ead

bird

Pres

ence

of d

ead

bird

in a

ny p

lace

of th

e m

arke

tD

escr

ibe:

Sepa

rate

arr

ange

men

t for

sic

k bi

rdin

the

mar

ket

Des

crib

e:

Sepa

rate

arr

ange

men

t for

dea

d bi

rdin

the

mar

ket

Des

crib

e:

Trad

ing

of s

ick

bird

Des

crib

e:

Trad

ing

of d

ead

bird

D

escr

ibe:




Cen

tre

for

Com

mun

icab

le D

isea

ses

icdd

r,b

[Dra

ft q

uant

itativ

e re

port

]11

/12/

2012

6.Ph

ysic

al s

truc

ture

of

the

shop

*

# of

sho

pFl

oor

mat

eria

l(c

emen

t/tile

s/br

ick/

mud

)

Are

a of

the

shop

(leng

th X

wid

th)

Pres

ence

of drai

nage

syst

em

(y/n

)

Pres

ence

of elev

ated

cage

keep

ing

plat

form

(y/n

)

Pres

ence

of w

eigh

tm

achi

ne(y

/n)

Pres

ence

of wei

ghin

gba

sket

(y/n

)

Pres

ence

of parti

tion

(y/n

)

Des

crip

tion

of th

e pa

rtitio

n an

dve

ntila

tion

Fron

t:

Back

:

Righ

t:

Left:

Sh1

Sh2

Sh3

Sh4

Sh5

Sh6

Sh7

Sh8

Sh9

Sh10




Cen

tre

for

Com

mun

icab

le D

isea

ses

icdd

r,b

[Dra

ft q

uant

itativ

e re

port

]11

/12/

2012

7.M

arke

t in

fras

truc

ture

Type

and

num

ber

of w

ater

sou

rce

Wat

er d

istri

butio

n ar

rang

emen

t for

indi

vidu

alsh

ops

Dra

inag

e sy

stem

of t

he m

arke

t

Loca

tion

and

dist

ance

of c

omm

on w

aste

dis

posa

lfro

m th

e po

ultry

sho

ps

Cen

tral s

uppl

y fo

r m

arke

t cle

anin

g an

d di

sinf

ectio

n(b

room

, dis

infe

ctan

t, br

ush,

glo

ves)

Cen

tral a

rran

gem

ent o

f mar

ket c

lean

ing

staf

f

Pres

ence

of v

ehic

le w

ithin

5/1

0 fe

et o

f the

pou

ltry

shop

s

Floo

r m

ater

ial o

f pou

ltry

mar

ket

Elem

ent/r

esou

rces

Des

crip

tion




APPENDIX 4: Guideline for indepth interview (IDI) withmember of market association

Separating chicken and duck

What do they know about the separate keeping arrangement of chickens and ducks?

Does the market have any rule of keeping chickens and ducks separate? Why or whynot? Can they implement the rule or policy? Why or why not? Do the shop ownersfollow it? Why or why not?

Is separating chickens and ducks feasible? Why? Or why not? What is feasible? What isthe motivation? What are the barriers? What are the alternatives that they can practice?

Waste disposal practices

Who is doing the job of collecting market waste (live bird market)? How frequently orhow many times of the day the collectors collect market wastes (live bird market)? Whattype of waste (offal/feather/liquid) do they collect from live bird market? During whichtime of the day they usually collect the offal and waste? Why at that time they collect it?What do (sell, dispose) they do after collecting the offal and waste? Why?

Do they have specific dustbin in the market? Is it functional? Can they access it daily?Explore solid and liquid waste disposal system and drainage system. What happens tothe waste after disposing in the waste disposal place of the market (taken away by citycorporation vehicle, remains there)? What are their initiatives for keeping market clean?How City Corporation collaborate with them in this regard? Explore the maintenanceprocess of the place or dustbin (how and how frequently). Who is responsible formaintenance of this market disposal place or dustbin?

Does the market have any rule or policy for disposing wastes of live bird market? Whyor why not? Can they implement the rule or policy? Why or why not? Do the shopowners follow it? Why or why not?

Is disposing offal and waste in specific dustbins daily feasible for the shop owners (timeconsuming, distance, requires manpower/money, disposal bin is expensive)? Why? Orwhy not? What is feasible (implementing new rule/policy)? What are the motivations?What are the barriers? What are the alternatives that they can practice?

Cleaning of cag and shop area

What do they know about the cleaning practice of the cages of the live bird market?What do they think/perceive about cleaning cages daily? Who is responsible for cleaningthe cages? Does the market have any rule or policy for cleaning cages of live bird market?Why or why not? Can they implement the rule or policy? Why or why not? Do the shopowners follow it? Why or why not?

What do they know about the cleaning practice of the shop area of the live bird market?What do they think/perceive about shop area daily? Who is responsible for cleaning theshop area? Does the market have any rule or policy for cleaning shop area of live birdmarket? Why or why not? Can they implement the rule or policy? Why or why not? Dothe shop owners follow it? Why or why not?




Is cleaning the cages with detergent and water daily feasible (can they afford detergentto clean the cages daily, do they have manpower)? Why? Or why not? What is feasible?What is the motivation? What are the barriers? What are the alternatives that they canpractice?

Is cleaning the shop area with detergent and water daily feasible (can they afforddetergent to clean shop area daily, do they have manpower)? Why? Or why not? Whatis feasible? What is the motivation? What are the barriers? What are the alternatives thatthey can practice?

Weekly market closure day for destocking, thorough cleaning and disinfection

Does the market have any weekly closure day? If no, why? If yes, is it maintained? If no,why? If yes, how (on which day, whole market or only the poultry shops, half day or fullday)? What activities are carried out on that day (destocking, thorough cleaning anddisinfection)? What is the process of cleaning different elements (market place, alleys,common slaughtering places, each shop with cages, floor, wall and waste disposalplace/container)? What materials are used for cleaning and disinfection? Who carry outthe activities?

What do they think of closing the market one day in a week? Do they support a weeklyclosure day of the market/shop? Why or why not? Do they think they are responsible forcleaning?

Is weekly market closure feasible (is it acceptable to the shop owners, manage/overcome/compensate the financial loss, can the market authority afford detergent ormanpower for cleaning)? Why? Or why not? What is feasible? What is the motivation?What are the barriers? What are the alternatives that they can practice?

Ask if there is any loss or benefit of a weekly market closure day? If they mentionfinancial loss, ask how much financial loss they assume might cause from a weeklyclosure day? How do they manage/overcome/compensate the financial loss?

If there is no weekly closure day in the market, then how it should be planned forimplementation?

Hygiene practices

Explore if they know about using anything (personal protective equipment) of the shopworker for slaughtering and processing (gloves, mask, apron)?

What do they think/perceive about using gloves and mask for slaughtering andprocessing? Do they think these can prevent disease? Why and how? Or why not? Is itnecessary to use gloves and mask? Why? Or why not?

Is it feasible for them to use gloves and mask? Why? Or why not? What is feasible? Whatare the alternatives that they know or practice?

Does the market have any rule or policy for wearing gloves, masks while slaughteringand processing birds? Why or why not? Can they implement the rule or policy? Why orwhy not? Do the shop owners follow it? Why or why not (barrier, motivation)?

What do they think/perceive about handwashing (with or without soap) after slaughtering andprocessing? Is it necessary to use soap after slaughtering and processing? Why? Or why not?




What do they think/perceive about handwashing (with or without soap) after disposingoffal and waste materials? Is it necessary to use soap after disposing offal and wastematerials? Why? Or why not?

What is the arrangement of hand-washing present in the individual shop and market(adequate water source and soap)? If yes, is it feasible for the worker (do they have supplyof water, soap or detergent, can they afford water, soap or detergent for washing hand)?If no, what are the alternatives present in the market (if there is no handwashingarrangement for the individual shop can they provide it for them, can they afford anycommon arrangement in the market)?

Do they provide any material (poster, leaflet, banner, verbal information) to the shopowners’ for their awareness building (after slaughtering, processing every batch ofpoultry and disposing offal and waste material)? How the market committee canencourage handwashing behavior?

Handling and trading sick and dead birds and awareness on bird flu

Do the market have any separate arrangement for keeping sick/dead bird? Where do theykeep sick/dead bird and why do they keep in that place?

Explore their perception on contact with sick bird? Do they think handling a sick birdwith bare hand to be risky (for contracting any disease/bird flu)? Explore their perceptionof the association of the risk of contracting disease with handling the offal, blood andexcreta of a sick bird with bare hand. What do they believe about contact with the offal,blood and excreta of a sick bird? Do they think handling the offal, blood and excreta ofa sick bird with bare hand to be risky (for contracting any disease/bird flu)? What do theybelieve about contact with dead bird? Do they think handling a dead bird with bare handto be risky (for contracting any disease/bird flu)?

Is avoiding trading or consuming sick/dead bird feasible (financial loss or other)? Why?Or why not? What is feasible? What is the motivation? What are the barriers? What arethe alternatives that they can practice?

Do they have any responsibility (rule/regulation/policy) regarding this matter (not trading,eating or disposing sick/dead bird)? Can they implement the rule or policy? Why or whynot? Do the shop owners follow it? Why or why not? Does the market have any rule orpolicy for touching/handling offal, blood, excreta of sick or dead bird? Why or why not?Can they implement the rule or policy? Why or why not? Do the shop owners follow it?Why or why not?

Do they know about bird flu? If yes, what do they know (is it a poultry or bird or humandisease, can it transmit to other animals or humans or other bird or poultry, what are thesign-symptoms in poultry and in humans, route of transmission from poultry to poultryand from poultry to humans)? What is their source of information? Do they provide anymaterial (poster, leaflet, banner, verbal information) to the shop owners’ for theirawareness building?




APPENDIX 5: Guideline for in-depth interview with poultryworkers


Why do they separate backyard chicken and cock or broiler chicken and backyardchicken or chicken and duck? If they keep together, then why? Explore how they defineseparating birds. What are the merits and demerits of separating birds or keeping birdstogether?

Why do they use different types of cage (bamboo/iron/plastic)? What are the advantagesand disadvantages of using a specific material, size or shape?



What types of waste (offal/feather/liquid/litter or feces/feed remainder) are generated intheir shop? What do they do with each type of waste (dispose/sell/give away)? Where,how and how long do they store waste until they dispose, sell or give away? Explore theprocess of disposing each type of waste. How frequently or how many times of the daythey dispose or the collectors collect these? During which time of the day they usuallydispose offal and waste? Why at that time they dispose it? Who is doing the job ofdisposing offal and waste?

Explore cleaning practice of the waste disposal container or dustbin of the shop (use ofwater, scrub, detergent and disinfectant, frequency of cleaning).

Explore the financial gain from selling waste.

Do they have specific dustbin in the market? Is it functional? Can they access it daily?What happens to the waste after disposing in the waste disposal place of the market(taken away by city corporation vehicle, remains there)? Explore the maintenanceprocess of the place or dustbin (how and how frequently). Who is responsible formaintenance of this market disposal place or dustbin?

Is disposing offal and waste in specific dustbins daily feasible (time consuming, distance,requires manpower/money, disposal bin is expensive)? Why? Or why not? What isfeasible? What is the motivation? What are the barriers? What are the alternatives thatthey can practice? Do they think market authority can play a role in this? If yes, how?

What do they do after disposing offal and waste materials? (probe for hand washing,when they wash hands after disposing, what they use for hand washing, where do theykeep the soap or detergent they use for hand washing, who is the owner of soap ordetergent, source of water).

What do they think/perceive about handwashing (with or without soap) after disposingoffal and waste materials? Is it necessary to use soap after disposing offal and wastematerials? Why? Or why not?




Cleaning of cage and shop area

Do they clean cages? How often do they clean it? Probe daily/weekly/monthly.

Explore how they clean cages. What do they use for cleaning the cages (water only,broom, detergent, bleaching)? Explore if the cleaning method is different for differenttypes of cages (bamboo, iron, plastic, broiler cages, backyard cages, duck cages, pigeoncages). Do they use separate cleaning agents for different types of cages? What are theadvantages and disadvantages of different types of cages in terms of cleaning process?Why do or do not they use detergent/explore their perception on cleaning withdetergent.

Do they clean shop area? How often do they clean it? Probe daily/weekly/monthly.

Explore how they clean shop area. What do they use for cleaning the shop area (wateronly, broom, detergent, bleaching)? Do they use separate cleaning agents for differentitems (floor, wall, utensils)? Why do or do not they use detergent/explore theirperception on cleaning with detergent.

Is there any difference in the cleaning practices of the cages and shop area? If yes, why?

Is cleaning cage with detergent and water daily feasible (can they afford detergent toclean cages daily, can they manage time, do they have manpower)? Why? Or why not?What is feasible? What is the motivation? What are the barriers? What are the alternativesthat they can practice? Do they think market authority can play a role in this? If yes, how?

Is cleaning the shop area with detergent and water daily feasible (can they afforddetergent to clean shop area daily, can they manage time, do they have manpower)?Why? Or why not? What is feasible? What is the motivation? What are the barriers? Whatare the alternatives that they can practice? Do they think market authority can play a rolein this? If yes, how?

Weekly market closure day for destocking, thorough cleaning anddisinfection

Does the market have any weekly closure day? If no, why? If yes, is it maintained? If no,why? If yes, how (on which day, whole market or only the poultry shops, half day or fullday)? What activities are carried out on that day (destocking, thorough cleaning anddisinfection)? What is the process of cleaning different elements (market place, alleys,common slaughtering places, each shop with cages, floor, wall, ceiling and wastedisposal place/container)? What materials are used for cleaning and disinfection? Whocarry out the activities?


Is weekly market closure feasible (can they afford this closure, do shop owners of themarket have to pay for cleaning activities, can the market authority afford detergent ormanpower for cleaning)? Why? Or why not? What is feasible? What is the motivation?What are the barriers? What are the alternatives that they can practice?





Hygiene practices

Explore if they use anything (personal protective equipment) for slaughtering andprocessing (gloves, mask, apron)? If yes, why (explore about the motivation of using it).If not, then why (explore about barrier of using it). Explore what they do with the glovesand mask that they use for slaughtering and processing (do they wash those, disposethose, reuse without washing, and share with other shop). Why?

What do they think/perceive about using gloves and mask for slaughtering andprocessing? Do they think these can prevent disease? Why and how? Or why not? Is itnecessary to use gloves and mask? Why? Or why not?

Is it feasible for them to use gloves and mask? Why? Or why not? What is feasible? Whatare the alternatives that they know or practice?

What do they do after slaughtering and processing birds? (probe for hand washing, whenthey wash hands after slaughtering and processing, what they use for hand washing,where do they keep the soap or detergent they use for hand washing, who is the ownerof soap or detergent, source of water).

What do they think/perceive about handwashing (with or without soap) after slaughteringand processing? Is it necessary to use soap after slaughtering and processing? Why? Orwhy not? What should be (what do they think) the frequency for handwashing afterslaughtering and processing (explore their perception and justification in this regard)?

Is it feasible for them to wash hands with soap after slaughtering, processing anddisposing offal and waste materials (do they have supply of water, soap or detergent, canthey afford water, soap or detergent for washing hand after every batch, can they managetime, is the shop owner in favor of this practice, can they maintain during busy hours)?Why? Or why not? What is the motivation? What are the barriers? What are thealternatives that they can practice?

What is the arrangement of handwashing present in the shop and market?

Handling and trading sick birds

How often do they have sick birds? Probe daily/weekly/monthly.

How do they recognize sickness in birds? Probe how they recognize mild sickness andsevere sickness. Do they consider damage during transportation as sickness?

What do they do with the sick birds? Where do they keep sick bird and why do they keepin that place? For example, in a basket in front of the shop so that it can be sold quickly,in a place in corner of the shop to hide it from the customers.

How do they handle sick bird? Do they use anything (gloves, mask, polythene, paper,clothe) before handling sick? Why or why not? What do they do (hand washing practice)after handling a sick bird? Why or why not?




How do they handle the offal, blood and excreta of sick bird? Do they use anything(gloves, polythene, paper, clothe) for handling these? Why or why not? What do you do(hand washing practice) after handling the offal, blood and excreta of a sick bird? Whyor why not?

What type of sick bird they sell and what type of sick bird they do not sell and why?Probe if selling practice varies with the severity of sickness.

Ask how much financial loss they experience due to bird sickness(daily/weekly/monthly). Explore how they recover the loss? Probe if by selling sickpoultry at a low price, by slaughtering and selling the meat, by consuming, by giving tothe poultry worker in the form of payment, etc.

Is avoiding trading or consuming sick bird feasible? Why? Or why not? What is feasible?What is the motivation? What are the barriers? What are the alternatives that they canpractice?

Handling and trading dead birds

How often do they have dead birds? Probe daily/weekly/monthly.

What is immediate disposal practice of the dead bird? Where do they keep dead bird andwhy do they keep in that place? For example, inside the offal disposal drum, in a cornerof the shop, under the cage, throw outside the shop, in the common market disposalplace.

What do they do with the dead bird at the end of the day?

How do they handle dead bird? Do they use (gloves, mask, polythene, paper, clothe)anything before handling dead bird? Why or why not? What do they do (hand washingpractice) after handling a dead bird? Why or why not?

Ask how much financial loss they experience due to bird die off (daily/weekly/monthly).Explore how they recover the loss. Probe carefully if by selling dead poultry, by sellingthe meat, by consuming, etc.

Is avoiding trading or consuming (ask only if they share any information regardingconsumption) dead bird feasible? Why? Or why not? What is feasible? What is themotivation? What are the barriers? What are the alternatives that they know or practice?

Awareness on bird flu

Do they know about bird flu? If yes, what do they know (is it a poultry or bird or humandisease, can it transmit to other animals or humans or other bird or poultry, what are thesign-symptoms in poultry and in humans, route of transmission from poultry to poultryand from poultry to humans)? What is their source of information?

What do they believe about contact with sick bird? Do they think handling a sick birdwith bare hand to be risky (for contracting any disease/bird flu)? Explore their perceptionof the association of the risk of contracting disease with handling the offal, blood andexcreta of a sick bird with bare hand. What do they believe about contact with the offal,blood and excreta of a sick bird? Do they think handling the offal, blood and excreta ofa sick bird with bare hand to be risky (for contracting any disease/bird flu)?




What do they believe about contact with dead bird? Do they think handling a dead birdwith bare hand to be risky (for contracting any disease/bird flu)?

Is avoiding contact with sick bird feasible (can they afford gloves and mask, do they havetime to wear gloves and mask before touching a sick bird, are they comfortable usingthose)? Why? Or why not? What is feasible? What is the motivation? What are thebarriers? What are the alternatives that they can practice to avoid contact?

Is avoiding contact with the offal, blood and excreta of a sick or dead bird with bare handfeasible (can they afford gloves, do they have time to wear gloves, are they comfortableusing gloves)? Why? Or why not? What is feasible? What is the motivation? What are thebarriers? What are the alternatives to avoid contact with the offal, blood and excreta ofa sick bird with bare hand that they can practice?

Is avoiding contact with dead bird feasible (can they afford gloves and mask, do theyhave time to wear gloves and mask before touching a dead bird, are they comfortableusing those)? Why? Or why not? What is feasible? What is the motivation? What are thebarriers? What are the alternatives that they can practice to avoid contact?




APPENDIX 6: Guideline for focus group discussion (FGD)with market association


What do they know about the separate keeping arrangement of chickens and ducks?

Does the market have any rule of keeping chickens and ducks in separate? Why or whynot? Can they implement the rule or policy? Why or why not? Do the shop ownersfollow it? Why or why not?



What are their initiatives for keeping market clean? How City Corporation collaboratewith them in this regard? Explore the maintenance process of the place or dustbin (howand how frequently).

Does the market have any rule or policy for disposing wastes of live bird market? Whyor why not? Can they implement the rule or policy? Why or why not? Do the shopowners follow it? Why or why not?

Is disposing offal and waste in specific dustbins daily feasible for the shop owners (timeconsuming, distance, requires manpower/money, disposal bin is expensive)? Why? Orwhy not? What is feasible (implementing new rule/policy)? What are the motivations?What are the barriers? What are the alternatives that they can practice?

What are the personal protective measures, poultry workers follow, while disposing theoffal and waste in dustbins? Why? Or why not? What about gloves and mask whiledisposing offal and waste?

Cleaning of cage and shop area

What do they know about the cleaning practice of the cages and shop area of the livebird market? Who is responsible for cleaning the cages and shop area? Does the markethave any rule or policy for cleaning cages and shop area of live bird market? Why or whynot? Can they implement the rule or policy? Why or why not? Do the shop ownersfollow it? Why or why not?

Is cleaning the cages and shop area with detergent and water daily feasible (can theyafford detergent to clean the cages and shop area daily, do they have manpower)? Why?Or why not? What is feasible? What is the motivation? What are the barriers? What arethe alternatives that they can practice?

What are the personal protective measures, poultry workers follow, while cleaning thecage and shop area? Why? Or why not? What about gloves and mask while cleaning theshop area/cages? Is it feasible (implementing rule/policy) or not?




Weekly market closure day for destocking, thorough cleaning anddisinfection

Does the market have any weekly closure day? If no, why? If yes, is it maintained? If no,why? If yes, how (on which day, whole market or only the poultry shops, half day or fullday)? What activities are carried out on that day (destocking, thorough cleaning anddisinfection)? What is the process of cleaning different elements (market place, alleys,common slaughtering places, each shop with cages, floor, wall, ceiling and wastedisposal place/container)? What materials are used for cleaning and disinfection? Whocarry out the activities?


Is weekly market closure feasible (is it acceptable to the shop owners,manage/overcome/compensate the financial loss, can the market authority afforddetergent or manpower for cleaning)? Why? Or why not? What is feasible? What is themotivation? What are the barriers? What are the alternatives that they can practice?


If there is no weekly closure day in the market, then how it should be planned forimplementation?

What protective gear is worn by the workers while cleaning and disinfecting the market(mask, gloves and boots)?

Hygiene practices

Explore if they know about using anything (personal protective equipment) of the shopworker for slaughtering and processing (gloves, mask, apron)?

Is it feasible for the workers to use gloves and mask? Why? Or why not? What is feasible?What are the alternatives that they know or practice?

Does the market have any rule or policy for wearing gloves, masks while slaughteringand processing birds? Why or why not? Can they implement the rule or policy? Why orwhy not? Do the shop owners follow it? Why or why not (barrier, motivation)?

What is the arrangement of handwashing present in the individual shop and market(adequate water source and soap)? If yes, is it feasible for the worker (do they have supplyof water, soap or detergent, can they afford water, soap or detergent for washing hand)?If no, what are the alternatives present in the market (if there is no handwashingarrangement for the individual shop can they provide it for them, can they afford anycommon arrangement in the market)? Probe feasibility of 5 steps of handwashing?

Do they provide any material (poster, leaflet, banner, verbal information) to the shopowners’ for their awareness building (after slaughtering, processing every batch ofpoultry and disposing offal and waste material)? How the market committee canencourage handwashing behavior?




Handling and trading sick and dead birds and awareness on bird flu

Do the market have any separate arrangement for keeping sick/dead bird? Where do theykeep sick/dead bird and why do they keep in that place?

Is avoiding trading or consuming sick/dead bird feasible (financial loss or other)? Why?Or why not? What is feasible? What is the motivation? What are the barriers? What arethe alternatives that they can practice?

Do they have any responsibility (rule/regulation/policy) regarding this matter (not trading,eating or disposing sick/dead bird)? Can they implement the rule or policy? Why or whynot? Do the shop owners follow it? Why or why not? Does the market have any rule orpolicy for touching/handling offal, blood, excreta of sick or dead bird? Why or why not?Can they implement the rule or policy? Why or why not? Do the shop owners follow it?Why or why not?

Do they know about bird flu? If yes, what do they know (is it a poultry or bird or humandisease, can it transmit to other animals or humans or other bird or poultry, what are thesign-symptoms in poultry and in humans, route of transmission from poultry to poultryand from poultry to humans)? What is their source of information? Do they provide anymaterial (poster, leaflet, banner, verbal information) to the shop owners’ for theirawareness building?




APPENDIX 7: Guideline for exit interview with customersof live bird markets

Where do you go to buy live birds? Why?

How long have you been coming to this market to buy live birds?

In which shops in this market do you go to buy live birds? What do you consider forselecting particular shop to buy live birds?

What do you consider for rejecting particular shops when you buy live birds?

Did you notice any change in this market, in the shops of this market or in the behaviorof the poultry workers of this market (probe: compare between the present situation andthe situation of 3-6 months before)? What are those? Does this change have any effect onyour choice of selecting the market or particular shop? What are those and why? (probe:if he mentioned about intervention please explore about it).




APPENDIX 8: Tools for monitoring

CHECKLIST FOR EACH SESSION (cÖwZwU †mkb Gi Rb¨ †PKwj÷)

Live Bird Market Communication for Development Initiative

jvBf evW© gv‡K©U KwgDwb‡Kkb di †W‡fjc‡g›U Bwbwk‡qwUf

Date:

ZvwiL: ___/___/___ (w`b/gvm/eQi)

Name of the market:

gv‡K©U Gi bvg

District:

†Rjv:

No. of show:

†kv b¤î:

Type of session: (0=No, 1=Yes)

†mkb Gi aib: (0= bv, 1= n¨vu)



Film show and demonstration (evW© d¬z m¤úwK©Z wdj¥ †kv Ges cÖ`k©bx)

Showed the following demonstration (s): wb‡gœvwjwLZ welq¸‡jv mwVK c×wZ‡ZKivi Dcvq cÖ`k©b Kiv n‡q‡Q:Wearing of gloves and masks at critical times-safe poultry handling andslaughtering

¸iæZ¡c~Y© mgq¸‡jv‡Z Møvfm Ges gv¯‹ civ, nvum-gyiwM aiv Ges RevB Kivi mgqCleaning and disinfection of shops and dustbins

nvum-gyiwMi †`vKvb Ges Wv÷web cwi®‹vi Ges RxevYygy³ Kiv

Safe disposal of offal and waste

wbivc` Dcv‡q nuvm-gyiwMi Dw”Qó/cvjK/bvwofuywo Ges AveR©bv †djvFive steps of hand washing

nvZ †avqvi cuvPwU avc




Time of starting session: ___:___ AM/PM

†mkb ïiæ nIqvi mgq: ___:___ mKvj/ yycyi/weKvj

Number of worker present at the beginning of the session:

†mkb ïiæ nIqvi mgq Dcw¯’Z Kgx©i msL¨v:

Time of ending of session: ___:___ AM/PM

†mkb †kl nIqvi mgq: ___:___ mKvj/ yycyi/weKvj

Number of worker present at the end of the session:

†mkb †k‡l Dcw¯’Z Kgx©i msL¨v:

Number of Leaflet Distributed:

KZ¸‡jv wjd‡jU weZiY Kiv n‡q‡Q:

% of audience covered by leaflet distribution:

Dcw¯’Z Kgx©‡ì g‡a¨ wjd‡jU weZiY Gi kZKiv nvi (KZRb‡K †`qv n‡q‡Q/KZRb Dcw¯’Z wQj):

Name of Market association head/member:

gv‡K©U mwgwZi mfvcwZ/m`‡mï bvg:

Signature: __________________________________

¯^v¶i: __________________________________

Name of Monitoring person:

gwbUiKvwi m`‡mï bvg:

Signature: __________________________________

¯^v¶i: __________________________________

Folk song (evW© d¬z m¤úwK©Z †jvKMxwZ/Mvb)Discussed on Biosecurity measures

Rxe wbivcËv m¤ú‡K© Av‡jvPbv Kiv n‡q‡QDiscussed on preventive health behavior

cÖwZ‡ivag~jK ¯^v¯’¨welqK eënvi/AvPiY m¤ú‡K© Av‡jvPbv Kiv n‡q‡Q

Discussion on other subjects

Ab¨ welq wb‡q Av‡jvPbv Kiv n‡q‡Q






Post session assessment: Film show

†mkb cieZx© g~j¨vqb: wdj¥ †kv



Date:


Name of the market:

gv‡K©U Gi bvg:

Name of the worker:

Kgx©i bvg:

Age of the worker:

eqm: ___ ___ eQi

Sex: 1= male, 2=female

wj½: 1 = ciæl, 2= gwnjv

How many years of schooling have you completed?

Avcwb K‡Zv eQi ¯‹z‡j covïbv m¤úbœ K‡i‡Qb? ___ ___ eQi



1 What have you heard/seen/learnt from the film show? [Do not prompt or read outthe answer options] wdj¥ †kv †Z Avcwb Kx Kx ï‡b‡Qb/†`‡L‡Qb ev wdj¥ †kv †_‡K Kx KxRvb‡Z †c‡i‡Qb? [†Kv‡bv Bw½Z w`‡eb bv ev DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv] a) Bird flu situation in the world and in

Bangladesh

evsjv‡`k Ges c„w_ex‡Z evW© d¬z Gi Ae¯’v evcwiw¯’wZ

0= Not mentioned

1= Mentioned

0= D‡jøL K‡ib wb

1= D‡jøL K‡i‡Qbb) Symptoms of bird flu in poultry

†cvjwUª/nuvm-gyiwM‡Z evW© d¬z Gij¶Y/DcmM©¸‡jv

c) How to prevent bird flu

wKfv‡e evW© d¬z cÖwZ‡iva Kiv hvq






d) All nine behaviours (5 animalhealth/biosecurity measures and 4preventive human health behaviours)

bqwU eënvi/AvPiY (5wU cÖvYx ¯^v¯’¨welqK/RxewbivcËv m¤úwK©Z eë¯’v Ges 4wU gvby‡li Rb¨cÖwZ‡ivag~jK ¯^v¯’¨welqK eënvi/AvPiY)

e) Impact of the nine behaviors on livelihoodand personal health

†ivRMvi/RxweKv Ges e¨w³MZ ¯^v¯’¨ Gi DcibqwU eënvi/AvPiY Gi dj/cÖfve

f) How to wear gloves and masks at criticaltimes

¸iæZ¡c~Y© mgq¸‡jv‡Z wKfv‡e Møvfm Ges gv¯‹ci‡Z n‡e

g) How to clean and disinfect shops anddustbins

†`vKvb Ges Wv÷web wKfv‡e cwi®‹vi-cwi”QbœGes RxevYygy³ Ki‡Z n‡e

h) Safe disposal of offal and waste

wbivc` Dcv‡q nuvm-gyiwMi Dw”Qó/cvjK/bvwofuywoGes AveR©bv †djv

i) Five steps of hand washing

nvZ †avqvi cuvPwU avcj) Other (specify)

Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb)1a What new information have you learnt from the film show? [Do not prompt or

read out the answer options] wdj¥ †kv †_‡K Avcwb bZyb Kx Kx welq/Z_¨ Rvb‡Z†c‡i‡Qb? [†Kv‡bv Bw½Z w`‡eb bv ev DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv ]

a) Bird flu situation in the world and inBangladesh


0= Not mentioned

1= Mentioned


1= D‡jøL K‡i‡Qbb) Symptoms of bird flu in poultry








wKfv‡e evW© d¬z cÖwZ‡iva Kiv hvqd) All nine behaviours (5 animal

health/biosecurity measures and 4preventive human health behaviours)












Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb)2a Please mention the Animal Health Behaviours (Bio-security measures). [Record

which ones are mentioned. Do not prompt or read out the answer options] cÖvYx¯^v¯’¨welqK/Rxe wbivcËv m¤úwK©Z eë¯’v¸‡jv D‡jøL Kiæb| [†Kvb †Kvb DËi D‡jøL K‡i‡QbZv †iKW© Kiæb| †Kv‡bv Bw½Z w`‡eb bv ev DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv ]

Not to trade, give away or eat sick or deadbirds

Amy ’ A_ev g„Z nuvm-gyiwM wewµ bv Kiv, Ab¨‡K bv†Ìqv ev bv LvIqv

0= Not mentioned

1= Mentioned


1= D‡jøL K‡i‡Qb






To keep chickens and ducks in the separatebaskets/pens

nuvm Ges gyiwM Avjv`/c„_Kv LuvPv/Szwo‡Z ivLvTo dispose offal and waste in specific dustbinsdaily

nuvm-gyiwMi Dw”Qó/cvjK/bvwofuywo Ges AveR©bvcªwZw`b Wv÷web G †djvTo clean cages and shop area with detergentand water daily

nuvm-gyiwMi LuvPv/Szwo, †`vKvb Ges †`vKv‡bi AvkcvkcÖwZw`b mvevb Ges cvwb w`‡q cwi®‹vi KivTo support weekly closure of the LBM fordestocking, and thorough cleaning anddisinfection

Av‡Mi †Kbv AwewµZ nvum-gyiwM hv‡Z Rgv n‡Z bvcv‡i Ges fv‡jvfv‡e cwi®‹vi-cwi”Qbœ Ges RxevYygy³Ki‡Z nvum-gyiwMi evRvi mßv‡n GKw`b eÜ ivLvmg_©b Kiv/†g‡b Pj‡Z mvnvh¨ Kiv

2b Please mention the preventive Human Health Behaviours. [Record which onesare mentioned. Do not prompt or read out the answer options] cÖwZ‡ivag~jK¯^v¯’¨welqK eënvi/AvPiY¸‡jv D‡jøL Kiæb| [†Kvb †Kvb DËi D‡jøL K‡i‡Qb Zv †iKW©Kiæb| †Kv‡bv Bw½Z w`‡eb bv ev DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv ]

Not to touch sick or dead bird with bare handsas it can increase the risk of contracting AIinfection

Amy ’ ev g„Z nuvm-gyiwM Lvwj nv‡Z bv aiv KviY G‡ZevW© d¬z nIqvi SzuwK ev‡o

0= Not mentioned

1= Mentioned


1= D‡jøL K‡i‡QbNot to touch offal , blood and excreta ofsick/dead bird with bare hands as it canincrease the risk of contracting AI infection

Amy ’ ev g„Z nuvm-gyiwMi Dw”Qó/cvjK/bvwofuywo, i³ evgjgyÎ Lvwj nv‡Z bv aiv KviY G‡Z evW© d¬z nIqviSzuwK ev‡oAll slaughters/Processors should wear gloves,masks and apron while slaughtering andprocessing birds

hviv nuvm-gyiwM RevB K‡ib ev cÖwµqv K‡ib Zv‡ìmeviB Møvfm, gv¯‹ Ges A¨vcÖb civ DwPZ/ìKvi






Wash hands with soap after slaughtering,processing every batch of poultry and disposingoffal and waste material

cÖwZ e¨vP (GKmv‡_ A‡bK¸‡jv) nuvm-gyiwM RevB,cÖwµqv Kivi ci Ges nuvm-gyiwMi Dw”Qó/cvjK/bvwofuywoGes AveR©bv †djvi c‡i mvevb w`‡q nvZ †avqv

3 Did you like the film show

wdj¥ †kv wU Avcbvi fv‡jv †j‡MwQj wK?

0= No

1= Yes

0= bv

1= n¨vu3a If yes, what did you like about the film show? Please specify. [Do not prompt or

read out the answer options] hw` n¨vu nq, Zvn‡j wdj¥ †kvi †Kvb †Kvb welq/w`KAvcbvi fv‡jv †j‡MwQj D‡jøL Kiæb? [†Kv‡bv Bw½Z w`‡eb bv ev DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv]

The film was entertaining

wdj¥wU we‡bv`bg~jK wQj

0= Not mentioned

1= Mentioned



The information in the film

wdj¥ G †`qv Z_¨The acting/actors in the film

wdj¥ Gi Awf‡bZv/Awf‡bÎx ev bvqK/bvwqKv‡ì evZv‡ì AwfbqThe IPC dialogue/discussion with poultry workers

†cvwëª Kgx©‡ì mv‡_ cvi¯úwiK K_v-evZv©/Av‡jvPbv

Demonstrations

mwVK c×wZ‡Z Kivi Dcvq¸‡jv cÖ`k©bOthers (specify)

Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb)3b If not, what did you not like about the film show? Please specify. [Do not prompt

or read out the answer options] hw` bv nq, Zvn‡j wdj¥ †kvi †Kvb †Kvb welq/w`KAvcbvi fv‡jv jv‡M wb D‡jøL Kiæb| [†Kv‡bv Bw½Z w`‡eb bv ev DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv]

The film was not entertaining

wdj¥wU we‡bv`bg~jK wQj bv

0 = Not mentioned

1 = Mentioned

0 = D‡jøL K‡ib wb

1 = D‡jøL K‡i‡Qb

The information

wdj¥ G †`qv Z_¨






The acting/actors

wdj¥ Gi Awf‡bZv/Awf‡bÎx ev bvqK/bvwqKv‡ì evZv‡ì AwfbqThe IPC dialogue/discussion with poultryworkers

†cvwëª Kgx©‡ì mv‡_ cvi¯úwiK K_v-evZv©/Av‡jvPbvDemonstrations

mwVK c×wZ‡Z Kivi Dcvq¸‡jv cÖ`k©bOthers (specify)

Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb)3b1 How can we make the film show better? Please specify. [Do not prompt or read

out the answer options] Avgiv wKfv‡e wdj¥ †kvwU AviI fv‡jv Ki‡Z cvwi D‡jøL Kiæb|[†Kv‡bv Bw½Z w`‡eb bv ev DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv ] Improving the film to be more entertaining

wdj¥wU Av‡iv fv‡jv Ki‡Z n‡e hv‡Z Av‡iv †ewkwe‡bv`bg~jK nq

0= Not mentioned

1= Mentioned


1= D‡jøL K‡i‡QbImproving the information provided

wdj¥ G Av‡iv fv‡jv Z_¨ w`‡Z n‡eThe acting/actors

wdj¥ Gi Awf‡bZv/Awf‡bÎx ev bvqK/bvwqKv‡ì evZv‡ì Awfbq Av‡iv fv‡jv Ki‡Z n‡eImproving the dialogue/discussion

†cvwëª Kgx©‡ì mv‡_ cvi¯úwiK K_v-evZv©/Av‡jvPbvAv‡iv fv‡jvfv‡e nIqv ìKviImproving the demonstrations

mwVK c×wZ‡Z Kivi Dcvq¸‡jv Av‡iv fv‡jvfv‡ecÖ`k©b Kiv/†`Lv‡bvOthers (specify)

Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb)3c Will you attend the film show again?

Avcwb wK wdj¥ †kvwU AveviI †`L‡eb?

0= No

1= Yes

0= bv

1= n¨vu






4 Can you please tell me the steps of the following demonstrated in the sessions.[Record if correctly mentioned] †mkb G †`Lv‡bv/cÖ`wk©Z wb‡gœvwjwLZ welq¸‡jv mwVKc×wZ‡Z Kivi avç‡jv `qv K‡i ejby| [mwVKfv‡e D‡jøL K‡i‡Qb wKbv †iKW© Kiæb]

Wearing of gloves and masks

Møvfm Ges gv¯‹ civ

0= No

1= Yes

0= bv

1= n¨vu


†`vKvb Ges Wv÷web cwi®‹vi Ges RxevYygy³ KivSafe disposal of offal or waste

wbivc` Dcv‡q nuvm-gyiwMi Dw”Qó/cvjK/bvwofuywo GesAveR©bv †djvFive steps of hand washing





Post session assessment: Folk song

†mkb cieZx© g~j¨vqb: evW© d¬z m¤úwK©Z †jvKMxwZ/Mvb



Date:


Name of the market:

gv‡K©U Gi bvg:

Name of the worker:

Kgx©i bvg:

Age of the worker:

eqm: ___ ___ eQi

Sex: 1= male, 2=female

wj½: 1 = ciæl, 2= gwnjv

How many years of schooling have you completed?

Avcwb K‡Zv eQi ¯‹z‡j covïbv m¤úbœ K‡i‡Qb? ___ ___ eQi



1 What have you heard/learnt from the folk song? [Do not prompt or read out theanswer options] †jvKMxwZ/Mvb G Avcwb wK ï‡b‡Qb ev Kx Kx Rvb‡Z †c‡i‡Qb? [†Kv‡bvBw½Z w`‡eb bv ev DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv ]k) Bird flu situation in the world and in

Bangladesh


0= Not mentioned

1= Mentioned


1= D‡jøL K‡i‡Qbl) Symptoms of bird flu in poultry


m) How to prevent bird flu

wKfv‡e evW© d¬z cÖwZ‡iva Kiv hvq






n) All nine behaviours (5 animalhealth/biosecurity measures and 4preventive human health behaviours)


o) Impact of the nine behaviors on livelihoodand personal health


p) How to wear gloves and masks at criticaltimes


q) How to clean and disinfect shops anddustbins


r) Safe disposal of offal and waste


s) Five steps of hand washing

nvZ †avqvi cuvPwU avct) Other (specify)

Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb)1a What new information have you learnt from the folk song? [Do not prompt or

read out the answer options] †jvKMxwZ/Mvb †_‡K Avcwb bZyb Kx Kx welq/Z_¨ Rvb‡Z†c‡i‡Qb? [†Kv‡bv Bw½Z w`‡eb bv ev DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv ]

a) Bird flu situation in the world and inBangladesh


0= Not mentioned

1= Mentioned


1= D‡jøL K‡i‡Qb b) Symptoms of bird flu in poultry








wKfv‡e evW© d¬z cÖwZ‡iva Kiv hvqd) All nine behaviours (5 animal

health/biosecurity measures and 4preventive human health behaviours)












Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb)2a Please mention the Animal Health Behaviours (Bio-security measures). [Record

which ones are mentioned. Do not prompt or read out the answer options] cÖvYx¯^v¯’¨welqK/Rxe wbivcËv m¤úwK©Z eë¯’v¸‡jv D‡jøL Kiæb| [†Kvb †Kvb DËi D‡jøL K‡i‡QbZv †iKW© Kiæb| †Kv‡bv Bw½Z w`‡eb bv ev DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv]

Not to trade, give away or eat sick or deadbirds

Amy ’ A_ev g„Z nuvm-gyiwM wewµ bv Kiv, Ab¨‡K bv†Ìqv ev bv LvIqv

0= Not mentioned

1= Mentioned








To keep chickens and ducks in the separatebaskets/pens

nuvm Ges gyiwM Avjv`/c„_Kv LuvPv/Szwo‡Z ivLvTo dispose offal and waste in specific dustbinsdaily

nuvm-gyiwMi Dw”Qó/cvjK/bvwofuywo Ges AveR©bvcªwZw`b Wv÷web G †djvTo clean cages and shop area with detergentand water daily

nuvm-gyiwMi LuvPv/Szwo, †`vKvb Ges †`vKv‡bi AvkcvkcÖwZw`b mvevb Ges cvwb w`‡q cwi®‹vi KivTo support weekly closure of the LBM fordestocking, and thorough cleaning anddisinfection

Av‡Mi †Kbv AwewµZ nvum-gyiwM hv‡Z Rgv n‡Z bvcv‡i Ges fv‡jvfv‡e cwi®‹vi-cwi”Qbœ Ges RxevYygy³Ki‡Z nvum-gyiwMi evRvi mßv‡n GKw`b eÜ ivLvmg_©b Kiv/†g‡b Pj‡Z mvnvh¨ Kiv

2b Please mention the preventive Human Health Behaviours. [Record which onesare mentioned. Do not prompt or read out the answer options] cÖwZ‡ivag~jK¯^v¯’¨welqK eënvi/AvPiY¸‡jv D‡jøL Kiæb| [†Kvb †Kvb DËi D‡jøL K‡i‡Qb Zv †iKW©Kiæb| †Kv‡bv Bw½Z w`‡eb bv ev DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv]

Not to touch sick or dead bird with bare handsas it can increase the risk of contracting AIinfection

Amy ’ ev g„Z nuvm-gyiwM Lvwj nv‡Z bv aiv KviY G‡ZevW© d¬z nIqvi SzuwK ev‡o

0= Not mentioned

1= Mentioned


1= D‡jøL K‡i‡QbNot to touch offal , blood and excreta ofsick/dead bird with bare hands as it canincrease the risk of contracting AI infection

Amy ’ ev g„Z nuvm-gyiwMi Dw”Qó/cvjK/bvwofuywo, i³ evgjgyÎ Lvwj nv‡Z bv aiv KviY G‡Z evW© d¬z nIqviSzuwK ev‡oAll slaughters/Processors should wear gloves,masks and apron while slaughtering andprocessing birds

hviv nuvm-gyiwM RevB K‡ib ev cÖwµqv K‡ib Zv‡ìmeviB Møvfm, gv¯‹ Ges A¨vcÖb civ DwPZ/ìKvi






Wash hands with soap after slaughtering,processing every batch of poultry and disposingoffal and waste material

cÖwZ e¨vP (GKmv‡_ A‡bK¸‡jv) nuvm-gyiwM RevB,cÖwµqv Kivi ci Ges nuvm-gyiwMi Dw”Qó/cvjK/bvwofuywoGes AveR©bv †djvi c‡i mvevb w`‡q nvZ †avqv

3 Did you like the folk song?

†jvKMxwZ/MvbwU Avcbvi fv‡jv †j‡MwQj wK?

0= No

1= Yes

0= bv

1= n¨vu3a If yes, what did you like about the folk song show? Please specify. [Do not

prompt or read out the answer options] hw` n¨vu nq, Zvn‡j †jvKMxwZ/Mvb Gi †Kvb†Kvb welq/w`K Avcbvi fv‡jv †j‡MwQj D‡jøL Kiæb? [†Kv‡bv Bw½Z w`‡eb bv ev DËi¸‡jvc‡o †kvbv‡eb bv]The words/lyrics

Mv‡bi K_v

0= Not mentioned

1= Mentioned



The information

Z_¨The music

myi

The performance of the artist

MvqK/MvwqKvi Mvb MvIqv

Others (specify)

Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb)3b If not, what did you not like about the folk song show? Please specify. [Do not

prompt or read out the answer options] hw` bv nq, Zvn‡j †jvKMxwZ/Mvb Gi †Kvb†Kvb welq/w`K Avcbvi fv‡jv jv‡M wb D‡jøL Kiæb| [†Kv‡bv Bw½Z w`‡eb bv ev DËi¸‡jvc‡o †kvbv‡eb bv]

The words/lyrics

†jvKMxwZ/Mvb

0= Not mentioned

1= Mentioned



The information

Z_¨






The music

myiThe performance of the artist

MvqK/MvwqKvi Mvb MvIqvOthers (specify)

Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb)3b1 How can we make the folk song better? Please specify. [Do not prompt or read

out the answer options] Avgiv wKfv‡e †jvKMxwZ/MvbwU AviI fv‡jv Ki‡Z cvwi D‡jøLKiæb| [†Kv‡bv Bw½Z w`‡eb bv ev DËi¸‡jv c‡o †kvbv‡eb bv]Improving the words/lyrics

†jvKMxwZ/Mvb Gi K_v Av‡iv fv‡jv Ki‡Z n‡e

0= Not mentioned

1= Mentioned



Improving the information

Av‡iv fv‡jv Z_¨ w`‡Z n‡eImproving the music

myi Av‡iv fv‡jv Ki‡Z n‡eImproving the performance of the artist

MvqK/MvwqKvi Mvb MvIqv Av‡iv fv‡jv n‡Z n‡eOthers (specify)

Ab¨vb¨ (D‡jøL Kiæb)3c 3c Will you attend the folk song show again?

Avcwb wK †jvKMxwZ/Mvb Gi †kv-wU AveviI †`L‡eb?

0= No

1= Yes

0= bv

1= n¨vu






4 5 Can you please tell me the steps of the following mentioned in the folk songsessions. [Record if correctly mentioned] †jvKMxwZ/Mvb Gi †mkb G D‡jøwLZwb‡gœvwjwLZ welq¸‡jv mwVK c×wZ‡Z Kivi avç‡jv `qv K‡i ejby| [mwVKfv‡e D‡jøLK‡i‡Qb wKbv †iKW© Kiæb]Wearing of gloves and masks

Møvfm Ges gv¯‹ civ

0= No

1= Yes

0= bv

1= n¨vu


†`vKvb Ges Wv÷web cwi®‹vi Ges RxevY-gy³ KivSafe disposal of offal or waste

wbivc` Dcv‡q nuvm-gyiwMi Dw”Qó/cvjK/bvwofuywo GesAveR©b †djvFive steps of hand washing





APPENDIX 9: Communication Materials






















Documents

Improving Biosecurity in Live Bird Markets Lessons Learned Report Prepared by