Clarence C. Gravlee

One Response

• Alyson Young

  Why look at perceptions of animal health systems?

  The articles this week make an argument for a closer examination of both ethnoveterinary care and the links between perceptions of human health and animal health. Mathais provides a brief background to ethnoveterinary studies and suggests some ways that the veterinary community could benefit from a better understanding of local animal care practices. While Nymanga et al. provide a case study of how information about ethnoveterinary care can be utilized to improve understandings of human-animal heath interactions. This discussion will focus primarily on the latter article.

  In the Nyamanga et al. article, they compare perceptions and practices in relation to human and livestock illness among the Luo of Kenya and suggest that their study has implications for improving/implementing health care services.

  The Nyamanga et al. study was conducted in rural Central Sakwa (western Kenya) among the Luo, an agropastoral group that rely heavily on livestock for their livelihood. Data for the study was collected in a two year period between Dec. 200-July 2004 and included interviews, focus group discussions, narratives, and participant observation. The sample design was purposive and included 52 interviews and four sex matched focus group sessions. Final data was analyzed using text analyses that identified main themes in interviews as well as associated concepts and phenomena.

  In short, the study found that Luo perceptions and treatment seeking practices are similar for humans and livestock. Nyamanga et al. identify three main categories of illness (biero momoko, remo marach, and yamo) as well as several smaller illness categories that Luo believe affect both humans and livestock. Many of these illnesses are considered to increase the risk for poor health by blocking the flow of materials through various channels (placenta/birth canal, blood, stomach contents, and food). Types of treatment varied depending on the illness, however treatment practices normally involved some method to ‘clear’ a blockage (i.e. bloodletting, purgatives). As with many societies that practice pluralistic treatment-seeking behavior, medicine could come from either local specialists or Western biomedicine–and often incorporated both simultaneously. Treatment decisions were also influenced by cost, availability, and estimations of ‘value of life’ and treatment efficacy.

  What is unique about the article is the comparison between animal and human health care systems. Most of the ethnoveterinary literature (see Martin 2001; McCorkle et al. 1996 for a review) focuses on just animal care systems, rather than looking at how illness and healing fit into a larger cultural context. I agree with the authors that the findings do have important implications for developing sustainable rural health care services. Unfortunately, the article lacks specific suggestions as to how this information could be used to help implement effective rural health care services.

  Here are a couple questions to facilitate discussion tomorrow:

  1. What are some of the strengths and weaknesses of the approach that Nyamanga et al. use in their study?

  2. Mathais mentions some of the issues with incorporating ethnoveterinary data into an evidence-based medical framework. What could be strengthened in the Nyamanga et al. article to make it more appealing to both public health and veterinary practitioners?

  3. How could this study be used to improve rural health care services, (i.e. what are the practical applications of this research)?

Leave a Reply