Eating Disorders: Predictors of Bovine TB Risk Behaviour Amongst Meat Handlers in Nigeria: A Cross-Sectional Study Guided by the Health Belief Model.

Predictors of Bovine TB Risk Behaviour amongst Meat Handlers in Nigeria: A Cross-Sectional Study Guided by the Health Belief Model.

Filed under: Eating Disorders

PLoS One. 2013; 8(2): e56091
Hambolu D, Freeman J, Taddese HB

Bovine Tuberculosis (bTB) is still a serious public health threat in developing countries. The aim of this study is to determine the social and cognitive factors predicting one of the risk behaviours amongst meat handlers in Nigeria, namely, eating Fuku Elegusi. This is the practice of eating the visibly infected parts of the lung in-order to convince customers to buy meat. The study is guided by the health belief model (HBM).This is a cross-sectional study of 349 randomly selected meat handlers in Oko-Oba Abattoir, in Lagos State. Descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression analysis were employed to determine perceptions and prevalence of risk behaviours and to identify predictors of eating Fuku Elegusi.Just over a quarter (28.1%) of the study participants knew that eating Fuku Elegusi could be a source of bTB in humans. The prevalence of eating Fuku Elegusi was found to be 22%. Across all knowledge indicators related to bTB, those who don’t eat Fuku Elegusi exhibited better knowledge. Strong predictors of eating Fuku Elegusi were: being male (OR: 2.39, 95% CI: 1.10 to 5.19; p?=?0.03), not knowing that eating Fuku Elegusi exposes to bTB (OR: 3.72, 95% CI: 1.69 to 8.22; p?=?0.001), and the perception that one cannot sell meat without tasting it (perceived barrier) (OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.60; p?=?0.001). Lower risk of eating Fuku Elegusi was predicted by perceived susceptibility to bTB due to another risk behaviour, namely, not washing hands after handling meat (OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.96; p-value?=?0.021). Television and radio were the most acceptable media for TB prevention messages (78.5% and 75.6% respectively).Meat handlers in developing countries bear high risk to bTB owing to prevailing social and cognition determinants. Findings were largely consistent with the propositions of HBM.
HubMed – eating


Phase I of The National Beef Quality Audit – 2011: Quantifying willingness-to-pay, best worst scaling, and current status of quality characteristics in different beef industry marketing sectors.

Filed under: Eating Disorders

J Anim Sci. 2013 Feb 13;
Igo JL, Vanoverbeke DL, Woerner DR, Tatum JD, Pendell DL, Vedral LL, Mafi GG, Moore MC, McKeith RO, Gray GD, Griffin DB, Hale DS, Savell JW, Belk KE

The National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA) – 2011 benchmarked the current status of, and assessed progress being made towards, quality and consistency of U.S. cattle, carcasses, and beef products since the completion of the first NBQA in 1991. Unlike previous NBQAs, objectives of the 2011 Phase I study were to determine how each beef market sector defined seven quality categories, estimate willingness to pay (WTP) for the same quality categories by market sector, and establish a best-worst (BW) scaling for the quality categories. Structured face-to-face interviews were conducted and responses were recorded using dynamic routing software over an 11-mo period (February to December 2011) with decision-makers in each of the following beef market sectors: Feeders (n = 59); Packers (n = 26); Food Service, Distribution, and Further Processors (n = 48); Retailers (n = 30); and Government and Allied Industries (n = 47). All respondents participated in a structured interview consisting of WTP and BW questions that were tied to seven quality categories and, then, were asked to ‘define’ each of the 7 categories in terms of what the category meant to them resulting in completely unbiased results. The 7 quality categories were: (a) how and where the cattle were raised, (b) lean, fat, and bone, (c) weight and size, (d) cattle genetics, (e) visual characteristics, (f) food safety, and (g) eating satisfaction. Overall, ‘food safety’ and ‘eating satisfaction’ were the categories of greatest and second most importance, respectively, to all beef market sectors except for Feeders. Feeders ranked ‘how and where the cattle were raised’ and ‘weight and size’ as the most important and second most important, respectively. Overall, ‘how and where the cattle were raised’ had the greatest odds of being considered a non-negotiable requirement before the raw material for each sector would be considered for purchase and was statistically more important (P < 0.05) as a requirement for purchase than all other categories except 'food safety'. When all market sectors were considered, 'eating satisfaction' was shown to generate the greatest average WTP percentage premium (11.1%); but that WTP premium value only differed statistically (P < 0.05) from 'weight and size' (8.8%). Most notably, when a sector said that 'food safety' was a non-negotiable requirement, no sector was willing to purchase the product at a discounted price if the 'food safety' of the product could not be assured. HubMed – eating


A randomized,phase 3Trial of naltrexone SR/Bupropion SR on weight and obesity-related risk factors(COR-II).

Filed under: Eating Disorders

Obesity (Silver Spring). 2013 Feb 14;
Apovian C, Aronne L, Rubino D, Still C, Wyatt H, Burns C, Kim D, Dunayevich E, ,

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of naltrexone/bupropion (NB) combination therapy on weight and weight-related risk factors in overweight and obese participants. DESIGN AND METHODS: CONTRAVE Obesity Research-II (COR-II) was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 1496 obese (body mass index 30-45 kg/m(2) ) or overweight (27-45 kg/m(2) with dyslipidemia and/or hypertension)participants randomized 2:1 to combined naltrexone sustained-release (SR) (32mg/day) plus bupropion SR (360 mg/day)(NB32) or placebo for up to 56 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were percent weight change and proportion achieving ?5% weight loss at Week 28. RESULTS: Significantly (P<0.001) greater weight loss was observed with NB32 vs. placebo at Week 28 (-6.5% vs. -1.9%) and Week 56 (-6.4% vs. -1.2%). More NB32-treated participants (P<0.001) experienced ?5% weight loss vs. placebo at Week 28 (55.6% vs. 17.5%) and Week 56 (50.5% vs. 17.1%). NB32 produced greater improvements in various cardiometabolic risk markers, participant-reported weight-related quality of life, and control of eating. The most common adverse event with NB was nausea, which was generally mild to moderate and transient. NB was not associated with increased events of depression or suicidality vs. placebo. CONCLUSION: NB represents a novel pharmacological approach to the treatment of obesity, and may become a valuable new therapeutic option. HubMed – eating


Find More Eating Disorders Information…