IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i11p1413-d119410.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge and Practices of Toxoplasmosis among Clinical Laboratory Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Study in Durango, Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Cosme Alvarado-Esquivel

    (Faculty of Medicine and Nutrition, Juárez University of Durango State, Avenida Universidad S/N, 34000 Durango, Mexico)

  • Luis Francisco Sánchez-Anguiano

    (Institute for Scientific Research “Dr. Roberto Rivera Damm”, Juárez University of Durango State, Avenida Universidad S/N, 34000 Durango, Mexico)

  • Luis Omar Berumen-Segovia

    (Faculty of Medicine and Nutrition, Juárez University of Durango State, Avenida Universidad S/N, 34000 Durango, Mexico)

  • Jesús Hernández-Tinoco

    (Institute for Scientific Research “Dr. Roberto Rivera Damm”, Juárez University of Durango State, Avenida Universidad S/N, 34000 Durango, Mexico)

  • Yazmin Del Rosario Rico-Almochantaf

    (Faculty of Medicine and Nutrition, Juárez University of Durango State, Avenida Universidad S/N, 34000 Durango, Mexico)

  • Alfredo Cisneros-Camacho

    (Faculty of Medicine and Nutrition, Juárez University of Durango State, Avenida Universidad S/N, 34000 Durango, Mexico)

  • Jorge Arturo Cisneros-Martínez

    (Faculty of Medicine and Nutrition, Juárez University of Durango State, Avenida Universidad S/N, 34000 Durango, Mexico)

Abstract

Background : The aim of this study was to determine the level of knowledge and practices about toxoplasmosis in a sample of clinical laboratory professionals in Mexico. Methods : 192 clinical laboratory professionals were surveyed. They were asked about (1) Toxoplasma gondii ; (2) clinical manifestations, diagnosis, treatment, and epidemiology of toxoplasmosis; and (3) their practices with respect to toxoplasmosis. Results : The range of animals infected by T. gondii was known by 44.8% of participants. Clinical aspects of toxoplasmosis were known by up to 44.3% of subjects. Correct answers about the interpretation of serological markers of T. gondii infection were provided by up to 32.8% of participants. A minority (32.2%) of participants knew about a high number of false positive results of anti- T. gondii IgM antibody tests. Most participants (90.1%) did not know what the anti- T. gondii IgG avidity test was. Up to 55.7% of participants provided incorrect answers about the interpretation of serology tests for the treatment of pregnant women. Common routes of T. gondii infection were known by <15% of participants. Most (84.4%) participants had not performed tests for detection T. gondii infection. Conclusions : Results indicate incomplete knowledge of T. gondii infection and toxoplasmosis and a limited practice of laboratory tests among the professionals surveyed.

Suggested Citation

  • Cosme Alvarado-Esquivel & Luis Francisco Sánchez-Anguiano & Luis Omar Berumen-Segovia & Jesús Hernández-Tinoco & Yazmin Del Rosario Rico-Almochantaf & Alfredo Cisneros-Camacho & Jorge Arturo Cisneros-, 2017. "Knowledge and Practices of Toxoplasmosis among Clinical Laboratory Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Study in Durango, Mexico," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-10, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:11:p:1413-:d:119410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/11/1413/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/11/1413/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:11:p:1413-:d:119410. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.