Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2002:(4):CD003049.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003049.

Community animal health services for improving household wealth and health status of low income farmers

Affiliations

Community animal health services for improving household wealth and health status of low income farmers

C U Martin et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002.

Update in

Abstract

Background: Community animal health services in low income countries aim to improve the health of animals. They are thought to directly improve the wealth and health or livelihood of their owners. These services have been promoted since the 1970s by aid organizations.

Objectives: To summarize reliable research of community animal health services on indicators for household wealth and health.

Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register (up to May 2002); the AGRIS database (January 1975 to April 2002); STN SIGLE database (January 1976 to 2002); CAB database (January 1973 to January 2002); AGRICultural OnLine Access (US National Agricultural Library; accessed 30 April 2002); MEDLINE (PubMed; 1966 to April 2002); the Science Citation Index (2000 to April 2002); and checked the reference lists of articles. We searched 24 relevant web sites and contacted 22 organizations between July and September 2000.

Selection criteria: Individual, cluster and quasi-randomized controlled trials, and controlled before and after studies: comparing community animal health services with no community animal health services, or with an alternative animal health service.

Data collection and analysis: We independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. We contacted study authors for additional information.

Main results: No studies met the inclusion criteria. Subsidiary analysis of excluded studies indicate a need for methodological rigor in evaluating programmes.

Reviewer's conclusions: No studies met the inclusion criteria. Reports that draw on observational data show insufficient rigor to conclude benefit. Given the amount of money and time invested in this area, these observations need to be confirmed by well-designed trials using pragmatic outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources