4.1 Article

Geographic distribution of wild rabies risk and evaluation of the factors associated with its incidence in Colombia, 1982-2010

Publisher

PAN AMER HEALTH ORGANIZATION
DOI: 10.1590/S1020-49892013000100002

Keywords

Rabies; disease vectors; epidemiologic factors; geographical localization of risk; Colombia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To update the information on the geographic distribution of battransmitted rabies foci in Colombia and evaluate the biotic and abiotic conditions associated with the incidence of this disease in the country. Methods. Observational study of a database containing information on the wild rabies foci identified between 1982 and 2010 and the cattle population in each municipality. The municipalities were classified according to the disease's risk of transmission, and an environmental characterization of 15 variables was carried out. A maximum entropy model was developed to predict which areas had conditions appropriate for the presence of the Desmodus rotundus vector infected by the virus and to evaluate the importance of the variables employed. Results. There were 2 330 foci in 359 (31.8%) of the country's 1 128 municipalities; 144 municipalities were classified as high risk. The highest incidence rates were found in Monteria, Valledupar, Riohacha, Aguachica, Unguia, Acandi, Rio de Oro, Tibu, Sahagun, and San Onofre. Rabies foci were found year-round but were more frequent (linear correlation [r] = 0.64) during the dry months (January to April). Temperature and precipitation were the variables contributing the greatest robustness to the prediction model. Conclusions. Prevention and control measures should be implemented in high-risk municipalities. The best months for conducting vaccination campaigns are June, November, and December. In future analyses, biotic interaction variables should be included to improve the predictive capacity of the model.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available