Community knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding common zoonotic diseases in Arbaminch District, Ethiopia

Abstract

Zoonotic diseases are common threats to global health. A large number of infectious diseases are transmitted from animals to humans. The current study aimed to assess the community’s knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding common zoonotic diseases in the Arbaminch district. A cross-sectional survey was carried out between November 2024 and June 2025. A total of 384 participants were interviewed in the study. Participants residing in these areas were randomly chosen. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire. The collected data were analyzed using Stata 17, and the results were reported using descriptive statistics and the chi-square test. The findings of this study revealed that a majority (55%) of participants had good knowledge about zoonotic diseases. Respondents know several modes of transmission for zoonotic diseases, with animal bites (32.5%) being the most recognized, followed by direct contact (15.5%), ingestion of raw products (10%), and inhalation (10%). Regarding attitudes, 63.2% of respondents exhibited a positive attitude towards the importance of zoonotic disease prevention and control, and 67.4% of respondents followed relatively good hygiene and preventive behaviors. However, risky practices were still common. Knowledge score showed a significant association with age. Attitudes of participants were significantly associated with education, age, occupation, and income. Similarly, practices were significantly associated with gender, education level, occupation, and income, with all associations being statistically significant (p < 0.05). The overall community knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding zoonotic diseases were relatively good.

Introduction

Zoonotic diseases are a significant public and animal health issue¹. They are of major global health concern; approximately 60% of existing human infectious diseases are zoonotic in origin, and about 75% of emerging infectious diseases in humans are transmitted from animals^1–4. They have been linked to recent outbreaks that have threatened global health and economies, including Ebola, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and now Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus causing COVID-19⁵. Zoonotic diseases can be transmitted in various ways, including direct contact with animals, contaminated surroundings, like anthrax or tuberculosis, or through consumption of contaminated food, like salmonellosis, E. coli, or campylobacteriosis. Indirect transmission through vectors like ticks and mosquitoes can occur, as seen with West Nile fever. As the global population continues to grow, the rising demand for food has significantly heightened human vulnerability to zoonotic infections^6,7.

In numerous developing nations, especially in rural communities, the connection between people, animals, and the environment is deeply intertwined. In rural areas of Ethiopia, livestock play a central role in daily life, leading to close human-animal interactions. It is common for individuals to consume uncooked animal products, which increases their risk of contracting zoonotic diseases such as Bovine tuberculosis and Brucellosis⁸. One of the key contributors to the emergence and spread of zoonotic diseases among humans is the general lack of awareness regarding these infections. Individuals in close contact with animals due to their professions, such as farmers, slaughterhouse workers, wildlife workers, pet store staff, and individuals with weakened immune systems, are particularly at risk⁴.

Establishing an effective and well-regulated public and animal health system, with a strong focus on inter-sectoral collaboration and communication, is crucial in the fight against zoonotic diseases. Enhancing livestock owners’ awareness and employing accurate disease diagnostic methods are also vital for successful prevention and control efforts⁹. In recent times, there has been growing recognition of the importance of assessing public knowledge and practices among communities in Ethiopia, as this information can contribute to the refinement and advancement of current control strategies. Various studies carried out on knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of zoonosis across different regions of Ethiopia have highlighted the ongoing presence of zoonotic diseases, raising significant public health concerns^10–13. Despite this, there is still limited documented information regarding the KAP of farmers, small-scale dairy producers, butchers, and urban residents concerning zoonotic diseases in Northern region of Ethiopia. Therefore, this study aims to assess the community’s KAP levels related to common zoonotic diseases in the Arbaminch district.

Materials and methods

Study area description

The research was carried out in the Arbaminch district, which is situated in the Gamo-Gofa administrative zone of the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region (SNNPR). Arbaminch city is divided into two main sub-cities, Shecha and Sikela. Geographically, the city lies about 505 kilometers south of Addis Ababa, positioned at 6°1′ 14.178″ N and 37°33′ 50.7924″ E, with an altitude of 1196 m above sea level (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Map showing Arbaminch city, the study area (Arc GIS, ArcGIS Desktop version 10.7.1).

Study population

The study population were residents in Arbaminch district, representing diverse socio-demographic backgrounds. Participants of both genders, various age groups greater than 18 years, occupations, and educational levels were included.

Study design and sampling technique

A cross-sectional study was applied to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to common zoonotic diseases. Participants residing in the study area were randomly chosen for the study. The respondents were further categorized into farmers, dairy producers, butchers, and others, including government employees, healthcare professionals, and merchants.

Sample size determination

The sample size for this study was determined using the Single Population Proportion Formula.

, Where: 1.96 (for 95% confidence level), 0.5 (assumed proportion, as no prior study provides an estimate), 0.05 (margin of error).

Substituting the values: = 384.16 384. Accordingly, the total calculated sample size for this study was 384 respondents.

Method of data collection

Data were collected using pretested, validated, and reliability-assessed questionnaires. A questionnaire was administered to randomly selected individuals. An in-person face-to-face interview was implemented to collect the data. The questionnaire was structured under two main sections, with the second section further divided into three sub-sections. The first section focused on the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants. The second section included questions related to the KAP regarding common zoonotic diseases. This section was subdivided into three parts, addressing Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices separately.

Data analysis

The data collected from the questionnaire were coded using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and then imported into STATA version 17 for analysis. Descriptive statistics were performed to summarize the data, presenting the results as frequencies and percentages. To evaluate the respondents’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices, specific scoring criteria were set. To assess the levels of knowledge, attitudes, and practices among the respondents, each correct response was coded as ‘1’ and each incorrect or unfavorable response as ‘0’. Total scores were then calculated for each domain. The normality of the data distribution was assessed using the Q-Q plot. Therefore, the mean score was used as the cut-off point to categorize respondents’ knowledge, attitude and practice scores. The scores for knowledge, practice, and attitude regarding common zoonotic diseases were determined based on the correct answers provided by the respondents. Participants scoring equal to or above the mean were considered to have good knowledge, a positive attitude, or good practice, while those scoring below the mean were classified as having poor knowledge, a negative attitude, or poor practice. To assess the differences in knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding common zoonotic diseases across various demographic variables, Chi-square tests were employed. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Socio-demographic status of respondents

In this study, the majority (60.42%) of the participants were males, 70.90% were in the age group of < 45 years, 28.9% attained higher education, and 67.84% were service providers (Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Variable		Frequency	Percentage (%)
Sex	Male	232	60.4
	Female	152	39.6
Age	18–45	230	59.9
	> 46	154	40.1
Educational level	unable to read and write	64	16.67
	Only read and write	93	24.22
	Primary education	55	14.32
	Secondary education	62	16.15
	Higher education	110	28.65
Occupation	Farmer	79	20.57
	Dairy farm workers	6	1.56
	Butchers	38	9.90
	Service providers	261	67.97
Income level	<=1500 ETB	135	35.16
	> 1500 ETB	249	64.84

Service providers include government employees, healthcare professionals, drivers & merchants; ETB, Ethiopian Birr.

Knowledge of the Respondents on Zoonotic Disease

In this study, 60.2% of respondents had heard of zoonotic diseases. The main source of information was the mass media, reported by 29% of participants. All respondents knew that there were certain diseases in their area which are zoonoses. Rabies was a commonly listed zoonotic disease (78%). According to the current survey, 32.5% of the respondents mentioned animal bites as the main mode of zoonotic disease transmission in the study area. Most (52.8%) of the respondents perceive that all animals transmit zoonotic diseases. This study indicated that, the majority (55%) of the respondents had good knowledge about common zoonotic diseases (Table 2).

Table 2.

Knowledge of the respondents on zoonotic diseases.

Variables	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Did you hear about zoonosis?
Yes	231	60.2
No	153	39.8
Where did you obtain the information?
School	94	24.4
Media	111	29
Friends/Relatives	26	6.8
Have no source	153	39.8
About which zoonotic disease did you hear?
Rabies	180	78.0
Anthrax	9	3.9
Taeniasis	21	9.1
Bovine Tuberculosis	7	3.0
Brucellosis	14	6.0
Which animals are transmitting zoonotic diseases?
Dogs	15	6.5
Cattle	17	7.4
Cats	30	13.0
All animals	122	52.8
Don’t know	47	20.3
Which modes of transmission do you know in zoonosis?
Inhalation	23	10.0
By contact	36	15.5
Ingestion	23	10.0
Bite of infected animals	75	32.5
Don’t know	74	32.0
How do you prevent zoonotic diseases?
Avoiding drinking raw milk	37	16.0
Avoiding eating raw meat	12	5.2
Vaccinating and treating animals	40	17.3
Avoiding contact with suspected animals	70	30.3
Washing hands after handling animals	42	18.2
Don’t know	30	13.0
Good knowledge score	127	55

Media implies both mainstream and social media.

In this study, the majority of females (58.2%) and males (52.9%) had good knowledge about common zoonotic diseases. Though there is a slight variation in knowledge between males and females, the difference is statistically non-significant (p > 0.05). It was also found that respondents who attained higher education (69.7%) have good knowledge about zoonotic diseases. Participants who have no formal education (53.8%) and only read and write (53.6%) had good knowledge about zoonotic diseases. The difference in knowledge about zoonotic diseases among the different educational levels was statistically non-significant (p > 0.05). 58% of service providers and 68% of participants with an income level exceeding 1500 ETB demonstrated good knowledge (Table 3).

Table 3.

Association of Knowledge of respondents on zoonotic diseases with socio-demographic variables.

Variable			Chi-square (p-value)
	Good Knowledge (%)	Poor knowledge (%)
Gender
Male	74 (52.9)	66 (47.1)	0.69 (0.41)
Female	53 (58.2)	38 (41.8)
Age
18–45 Years	65 (47.1)	73 (52.9)	4.57 (0.03)
> 45 Years	57 (61.3)	36 (38.7)
Educational level
unable to read and write	21 (53.8)	18 (46.2)	6.87 (0.14)
Only read and write	30 (53.6)	26 (46.4)
Primary education	14 (42.4)	19 (57.6)
Secondary education	19 (51.4)	18 (48.6)
Higher education	46 (69.7)	20 (30.3)
Occupation
Farmer	23 (49.0)	24 (51.0)	2.41 (0.49)
Dairy farm workers	1 (25.0)	3 (75.0)
Butchers	12 (52.2)	11 (47.8)
Service providers	91 (58.0)	66 (42.0)
Income level
<=1500 ETB	53 (65.4)	28 (34.6)	1.21 (0.27)
> 1500 ETB	102(68.0)	48 (32.00)

Attitudes of the respondents on zoonotic diseases

The current survey revealed 57.1% of respondents had a perception of zoonotic disease transmission from animal to human. Whereas a higher percentage (76.6%) of the respondents perceived that zoonotic diseases cannot be transmitted from humans to animals. The majority of the respondents agreed that consumption of raw meat (57.4%) and milk (66.2%) plays a great role in the transmission of zoonotic diseases. The majority of respondents (63.2%) exhibited a positive attitude toward zoonotic disease prevention and treatment, with 51.1% expressing high concern. Overall, 63.2% demonstrated positive attitudes toward the transmission and prevention of common zoonoses (Table 4).

Table 4.

Attitudes of the participants on zoonotic disease.

Variables	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Zoonotic diseases can be transmitted from animals to humans
Agree	132	57.1
Disagree	99	42.9
Zoonotic diseases can be transmitted from humans to animals.
Agree	54	23.4
Disagree	177	76.6
Zoonotic diseases can be transmitted by consuming raw meat
Agree	132	57.4
Disagree	99	42.6
Zoonotic disease can be transmitted by consuming raw milk
Agree	153	66.2
Disagree	78	33.8
A person affected by a zoonotic disease can be treated
Agree	146	63.2
Disagree	85	36.8
Zoonotic disease can be prevented
Agree	146	63.2
Disagree	85	36.8
Zoonotic diseases are a problem in your area
Agree	129	55.8
disagree	102	44.2
How concerned are you about the impact of zoonotic diseases early?
Very concerned	118	51.1
Concerned	69	29.9
Neutral	41	17.7
Not concerned	3	1.3
Positive attitudes	146	63.2

In the current study, females had a slightly higher proportion (65.9%) of a good attitude towards zoonotic disease. But the difference in attitude towards zoonotic diseases between sexes was found to be statistically non-significant (p > 0.05). Farmers (21.3%) and dairy farm workers (25%) in this study had a positive attitude toward zoonotic diseases. Whereas, butchers (69.6%) and service providers (75.2%) of this study area were found to have a positive attitude towards zoonotic diseases. The variation in attitudes towards zoonotic diseases across age, education, occupation, and income was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05) (Table 5).

Table 5.

Relationship between Attitude of respondents on zoonotic diseases and socio-demographic variables.

Variable	Attitude		Chi-square (p-value)
	Positive (%)	Poor (%)
Gender
Male	85 (60.7)	55 (39.3)	0.52 (0.47)
Female	60 (65.9)	31 (34.1)
Age
18–45	95 (68.8)	43 (31.2)	4.61 (0.03)
> 46	50 (53.8)	43 (46.2)
Educational level
unable to read and write	9 (23.1)	30 (76.9)	53.2 (< 0.001)
Only read and write	45 (80.4)	11 (19.6)
Primary education	32 (97.0)	1 (3.0)
Secondary education	16 (43.2)	21 (56.8)
Higher education	44 (66.7)	22 (33.3)
Occupation
Farmer	10 (21.3)	37 (78.7)	34.5 (< 0.001)
Dairy farm worker	1 (25.0)	3 (75.0)
Butchers	16 (69.6)	7 (30.4)
Service providers	118 (75.2)	39 (24.8)
Income level
<=1500 ETB	59 (72.8)	22 (27.2)	3.84 (0.05)
> 1500 ETB	87 (58.0)	63 (42.0)

Practices of the respondents on zoonotic diseases

The overall practice of the respondents on zoonotic diseases was found to be good (67.4%) (Table 6). 58% of the respondents didn’t make contact with infected animals. However, among study participants, 72.9% and 48.2% of the respondents had a habit of consuming raw meat and unpasteurized milk, respectively. About 47.1% respondents shared the same house with different species of animals. Moreover, most of the respondents (75.8%) practice backyard slaughter.

Table 6.

Practices of the respondents on zoonotic diseases.

Variables	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Did you avoid contact with animals showing signs of disease?
Yes	224	58.3
No	160	41.7
Did you consume raw meat?
Yes	280	72.9
No	104	27.1
Where did you get the source of meat and meat Products?
Legal enterprises	151	39.3
Slaughtered at home	120	31.3
Both	113	29.4
Did you consume unpasteurized milk?
Yes	189	49.2
No	195	50.8
Did you share the same house with animals (ex., pets)?
Yes	181	47.1
No	203	52.9
Did you use meat slaughtered in backyards?
Yes	291	75.8
No	93	24.2
Good practice	259	67.4

In the current study, both males (59%) and females (80.3%) demonstrated good practices regarding the prevention and control of zoonotic diseases. Similarly, illiterate individuals (54.7%) as well as those with a high school education (45.2%) showed good practices. Among occupational groups, farmers (38%) and individuals in other professions (74.7%) also exhibited good preventive and control practices. Respondents who attained higher education had good practice in preventing and controlling zoonotic diseases. The difference in practice of preventing and controlling zoonotic diseases among the demographic variables was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05) (Table 7).

Table 7.

Association of Practice of respondents on zoonotic diseases by socio-demographic variables.

Variable	Practice		Chi-square p value
	Good	Poor
Gender
Male	137 (59.0)	95 (41.0)	18.8 (0.000)
Female	122 (80.3)	30 (19.7)
Age
18–45	199 (86.5)	31 (13.5)	0.002 (0.965)
> 46	133 (86.4)	21 (13.6)
Educational level
unable to read and write	35 (54.7)	29 (45.3)	42.7 (0.000)
Only read and write	60 (64.5)	33 (35.5)
Primary education	38 (69.1)	17 (30.9)
Secondary education	28 (45.2)	34 (54.8)
Higher education	98 (89.1)	12 (10.9)
Occupation
Farmer	30 (38.0)	49 (62.0)	39.6 (0.000)
Dairy farm worker	5 (83.3)	1 (16.7)
Butchers	29 (76.3)	9 (23.7)
Service providers	195 (74.7)	66 (25.3)
Income level
<=1500	105 (77.8)	30 (22.2)	10.1 (0.001)
> 1500	154 (61.8)	95 (38.2)

In general, the overall knowledge, attitude, and practice scores are close to one another, though variations in scores are observed across different demographic variables (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

chart showing the knowledge, attitudes, and practices scores across different demographic groups of respondents.

Discussion

The current study revealed that 55% of respondents demonstrated a good understanding of zoonoses. A supporting finding (52.5% good knowledge) was presented in a survey conducted in and around Bahir Dar City, North Western Ethiopia¹¹. This result is higher than the study conducted in Bangladesh, stating that only 11.5% of respondents had good knowledge about zoonosis¹⁴ and lower than the study conducted in Central Gondar Zone, a study in Ada’a district, Oromia, Ethiopia, and in Kellem Wollega zone which presented 60%¹², 66.8%¹³, and 58.4%¹⁵ good knowledge, respectively. The variations of knowledge levels between studies could arise from the types of study participants, study location, the methodologies applied, the level of information flow across regions or countries, and the type of questions used to determine the level of knowledge. Furthermore, the frequency of zoonotic diseases identified in this study was lower than in a study from Addis Ababa, where diseases like rabies (100%), anthrax (94.27%), taeniasis (89.06%), tuberculosis (88.54%), and brucellosis (49.48%) were most frequently mentioned¹⁶. The differences can likely be attributed to variations in access to information, as Addis Ababa, being the capital city, has more frequent and accessible sources of information compared to Arbaminch. The difference in study populations could also be a factor, as all participants in Girma et al.¹⁶ possessed formal education. The other study in Greece presented that 62.3% farmers were aware of the zoonotic nature of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and 78.9% of farmers were aware of anthrax¹⁷. This level of knowledge in Greece may be an indication of a higher level of public awareness than in Ethiopia. The study also identified that the main modes of zoonotic disease transmission in the communities were bites from infected animals (32.6%). These results are lower than the study conducted in Ada’a district, Oromia, Ethiopia, which reported the role of animal bites in the transmission of zoonosis was 42.0%¹³. The variation in findings could be due to factors such as population size, media accessibility, and sample size between the studies.

In the current study, the knowledge score was significantly associated with the age of the participants (χ² =4.57, p = 0.03), supported by a study conducted in Ada’a district, Oromia, Ethiopia¹³. However, age was insignificant towards knowledge score in a study conducted in Bugesera district of Rwanda¹⁸. The support from the study conducted in Ada’a district, Oromia, Ethiopia, likely mirrors similar socio-cultural and educational contexts, where age serves as a proxy for experience and access to zoonotic disease information, reinforcing why older age groups tend to show higher knowledge scores in our study. Conversely, the insignificance of age towards knowledge score in the Bugesera district of Rwanda study may reflect different contextual factors: possibly more uniform access to education and information about zoonotic diseases across age groups, or a younger demographic structure where the differences in life experience related to zoonotic diseases are less pronounced. It could also indicate more effective or widespread public health education campaigns targeting all age groups equally, reducing disparities in knowledge linked to age.

The current study reported 63.2% of participants exhibiting positive attitudes toward zoonotic diseases. This is fairly consistent with the study in and around Bahir Dar City, Ethiopia, which showed a slightly higher positive attitude level of 68.6%¹¹. The study in Selangor, Malaysia, showed a satisfactory attitude rate of 51.1%. This difference could be attributed to various factors, including different levels of awareness, cultural perceptions, and public health education in Malaysia compared to the current study area¹⁹. Conversely, the attitude level in the current study is lower than the study conducted in Bishoftu, Dukem, and Addis Ababa, central Ethiopia, which reported an 82.1% positive attitude. This higher percentage could be due to targeted health education, local experience with zoonotic disease burden, or variations in study methodologies and participant profiles in those areas²⁰. Overall, these differences highlight how geographic, demographic, cultural, and study design factors influence community attitudes toward zoonotic diseases. Higher positive attitudes observed in some Ethiopian settings may relate to more direct exposure or better knowledge dissemination, while variations in other regions like Malaysia could reflect diverse local contexts and awareness levels. Therefore, these comparisons justify the observed variation in attitudes and support tailoring zoonotic disease education and intervention strategies to local population needs and conditions.

The significant association of demographic factors such as age (χ²=4.61, p = 0.03), education level (χ²=53.2, p < 0.001), occupation (χ²=34.5, p < 0.001), and income (χ²=3.84, p = 0.05) with attitude levels toward zoonotic diseases in this study aligns with findings from other Ethiopian studies. For example, a study in Western Hararghe Zone, Eastern Ethiopia, showed that education level was strongly associated with perceptions and attitudes toward zoonoses. Respondents with higher education levels exhibited significantly better attitudes, highlighting education’s role in shaping awareness and preventive behaviors²¹. Similarly, research conducted on government workers in Central Gondar Zone revealed a positive association between educational attainment and attitude levels toward zoonotic parasites from pet animals. This study also found that occupation and years of service influenced attitudes, supporting the notion that demographic and professional factors impact zoonotic disease awareness and preventive attitudes¹². Age also plays an influential role, with several studies reporting that younger or middle-aged adults tend to have better attitudes due to greater exposure to health education and information sources. For instance, in a study assessing foodborne zoonotic diseases in Northwest Ethiopia, younger age groups demonstrated improved awareness and attitudes, possibly due to their higher likelihood of accessing information and educational resources²². Overall, these comparisons justify the significant associations found in the current study and underscore the importance of demographic factors in shaping public attitudes toward zoonotic diseases in Ethiopia. Tailored health education and awareness programs targeting specific demographic groups, particularly focusing on high-risk groups, are essential for improving attitudes and facilitating better preventive behaviors against zoonotic diseases.

The finding that 67.4% of respondents in this study demonstrated generally good practices regarding zoonotic diseases contrasts with other studies in Ethiopia that reveal ongoing risky behaviors despite some good practices. Notably, 72.9% of respondents reported consuming raw meat and 49.2% consumed unpasteurized milk, which are recognized risk factors for foodborne zoonotic diseases such as Taenia saginata infection and Bovine tuberculosis. In a study focused on zoonoses related to livestock handling and foodborne pathogens, the practice level was reported to be around 59% among dairy farm workers and livestock handlers, somewhat below the current findings but within a comparable range²³. Conversely, some studies have reported lower practice scores, such as one conducted in a community in and around Bahir Dar city, Northwestern Ethiopia, where only about 39.4% of respondents demonstrated good prevention practices related to major zoonotic diseases¹¹. In summary, the current study’s practice score reflects a moderately better performance in the adoption of safe practices compared to some similar Ethiopian settings, but it also confirms that risky traditional behaviors like raw meat and unpasteurized milk consumption continue to undermine zoonotic disease prevention efforts. This underscores the persistent need for culturally tailored behavioral change interventions and One Health integrated approaches to improve zoonotic disease prevention practices across Ethiopia.

The significant associations observed in this study between practice scores and demographic factors such as gender (χ² = 18.8, p = 0.000), education (χ² = 42.7, p = 0.000), occupation (χ² = 39.6, p = 0.000), and income (χ² = 10.1, p = 0.001) align with findings from other studies in Ethiopia and similar settings. A study supporting our finding states that education consistently correlates with better zoonotic disease practices. Higher educational levels increase awareness of disease transmission and motivate safer behaviors such as proper meat handling and milk pasteurization²¹. Gender-specific responsibilities, educational attainment, occupational exposure, and socioeconomic status all modulate how communities perceive risk and adopt preventive behaviors. This underscores the importance of integrated, culturally sensitive, and targeted public health strategies that address the unique opportunities and challenges posed by these demographic variations to effectively reduce zoonotic disease burden as evidenced by other studies^21,22,24. Overall, these comparisons highlight that demographic factors shape zoonotic disease practices by influencing exposure risk, knowledge, and access to prevention resources. Addressing these disparities through gender-sensitive, educational, and occupational strategies is essential for effective zoonotic disease control and improving community health.

Limitations of the study

The use of multiple-choice response options may have introduced response bias. Although interviewers underwent training to standardize the interpretation and administration of each question, there remains a possibility that respondents may have misunderstood some items.

Conclusion and recommendations

The findings of this study revealed many participants demonstrating limited awareness of the modes of transmission between animals and humans. Despite this, the community exhibited a generally positive attitude toward common zoonotic illnesses. However, prevailing daily practices suggest elevated risk for zoonotic infections. Risky practices like, close contact with sick animals, consumption of raw meat and unpasteurized milk, cohabitation with livestock, home slaughtering, and feeding uncooked animal organs to dogs were identified in this study. These behaviors underscore the urgent need for targeted education and intervention strategies to bridge the gap between knowledge, attitude, and safe practices in zoonotic disease prevention.

Author contributions

FY: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing– original draft, Writing– review & editing. NA: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Writing– review & editing. MB: Investigation, Writing– review & editing. AS: Investigation, Writing– review & editing. GG: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. ZB: Investigation, Writing– review & editing. TD: Investigation, Writing– review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

Data availability

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Samara University Ethical Review Committee approved the studies involving humans (SU/IRC/16/2025). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their informed consent to participate in this study.