IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0200873.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The evaluation of Animal Bite Treatment Centers in the Philippines from a patient perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Charinna B Amparo
  • Sarah I Jayme
  • Maria Concepcion R Roces
  • Maria Consorcia L Quizon
  • Maria Luisa L Mercado
  • Maria Pinky Z Dela Cruz
  • Dianne A Licuan
  • Ernesto E S Villalon III
  • Mario S Baquilod
  • Leda M Hernandez
  • Louise H Taylor
  • Louis H Nel

Abstract

Background: The Philippines has built an extensive decentralised network of Animal Bite Treatment Centers (ABTCs) to help bite victims receive timely rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) at little cost. This study surveyed patients in the community and at ABTCs of three provinces to assess animal bite/scratch incidence, health-seeking behaviour and PEP-related out-of pocket expenses (OOPE). Methodology and principal findings: During community surveys in 90 barangays (neighbourhoods), 53% of households reported at least one animal bite /scratch injury over the past 3 years, similar across urban and rural barangays. Overall bite/scratch incidences in 2016–17 were 67.3, 41.9 and 48.8 per 1,000 population per year for Nueva Vizcaya, Palawan and Tarlac respectively. Incidences were around 50% higher amongst those under 15 years of age, compared to -those older than 15. Household awareness of the nearest ABTCs was generally over 80%, but only 44.9% sought proper medical treatment and traditional remedies were still frequently used. The proportion of patients seeking PEP was not related to the distance or travel time to the nearest ABTC. For those that did not seek medical treatment, most cited a lack of awareness or insufficient funds and almost a third visited a traditional healer. No deaths from bite/scratch injuries were reported. A cohort of 1,105 patients were interviewed at six ABTCs in early 2017. OOPE varied across the ABTCs, from 5.53 USD to 37.83 USD per patient, primarily dependent on the need to pay for immunization if government supplies had run out. Overall, 78% of patients completed the recommended course, and the main reason for non-completion was a lack of time, followed by insufficient funds. Dog observation data revealed that 85% of patients were not truly exposed to rabies, and education in bite prevention might reduce provoked bites and demand for PEP. An accompanying paper details the ABTC network from the health provider’s perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Charinna B Amparo & Sarah I Jayme & Maria Concepcion R Roces & Maria Consorcia L Quizon & Maria Luisa L Mercado & Maria Pinky Z Dela Cruz & Dianne A Licuan & Ernesto E S Villalon III & Mario S Ba, 2018. "The evaluation of Animal Bite Treatment Centers in the Philippines from a patient perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-17, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0200873
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200873
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200873
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200873&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0200873?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0200873. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.