We accept

Impact of Dog Treatment on Rabies


Rabies-is a fatal viral disease that causes irritation of the nervous system, captured from bites or scratches of rabid family pets, mostly domestic-dogs (>95%). [1] Immediate treatment of infected humans with four doses post-exposure prophylaxis decreases chance of expanding severe infections, but this is prevented by availability and awareness of treatment in low-income options.

Canine-vaccination provides broader benefits for disease-control reducing cases in dogs, human animal-bite injuries, and range of human-cases. [2] As the value of canine vaccination is well-known, local uptake at low-income-settings have been low despite general public provision and funding. [3]


The intervention entails empowering community-health-workers to formulate local-strategies to encourage involvement and carry out self-organized rabies-vaccination days, compared against standard of treatment of centrally-coordinated program. The involvement assumes that low-uptake for current publicly-provided canine vaccination programs is because of locally-inappropriate programs that not effectively promote consciousness and proposal. Community-directed interventions are used in other general population health diseases with encouraging results in improving access to interventions and enhancing efficiency, cost-effectiveness and sustainability. [4] But, its efficiency for canine-rabies vaccination is-unknown. Community-directed interventions for rabies vaccination is theorized to maximize reach of vaccination activities through localization, more effective community-engagement, and more accurate targeting of potential households.

The theory of change behind the intervention is illustrated by the reasoning model in Number 1.


The intervention makes use of people, money, equipment, and research bottom to transport it out. The implementers will touch district officers, train trainors, and recruit community health care employees (HCW, i. e. coordinators and vaccinators). Money will be utilized for training and logistics, as well the bonuses (20/month/coordinators and 4/day/vaccinators) for the HCW to put into action this program. Equipment for training, coordination, vaccination, and monitoring are necessary to conduct the actions. And, all inputs and activities are developed from the study base available. The assumption is that these inputs are satisfactory and effective in undertaking the intervention activities.

Figure 1. Logic Model


The inputs will be used to execute recruitment, training, and mentoring for the intervention. Recruitment includes development of requirements and guidelines for choosing HCW and real strategies to reach them. HCW recruits will experience training on subject areas such as rabies, safe handling of pet dogs and equipment, vaccine supervision, and elimination as mentioned in the reasoning model. They will also experience mentoring with the research team through annual retraining and network support to stimulate the HCW to execute the intervention. The assumption is that HCW are able to understand and internalize their role in rabies prevention, and that the activities will equip those to formulate satisfactory and effective local strategies to perform the vaccination and community engagement programs.

Formulation of community strategies is an essential step as it actualizes the intervention's main assumption. The developed strategies are assumed to effectively sensitize the community towards the vaccination advertising campaign and mobilize the most number of families to take part. This also assumes every individual HCW agrees with and follows the strategy created by the group.

The end activity of the involvement is to put into practice the formulated approaches for conduct of vaccination days and nights, dog enrollment, and community proposal. Do of vaccination times involve local business and recruitment, logistic management especially for vaccines and equipment, and real do of canine vaccination. The HCWs are anticipated to perform dog registrations and keep maintaining an modified record-keeping mechanism. The strategies, being locally owned, are also assumed to go beyond just conduct of vaccination into regular community proposal with follow-up/ encouraging activities.


The intervention's assumption on the worthiness of local mobilization and proposal is expected to contribute towards increased community understanding and acceptability of rabies vaccination. This is likely to increase total attendance to vaccination times, as both occurrence and method are dependent on local needs analysis and planning of the group.

Both higher community awareness and attendance to vaccination days and nights are assumed to affect canine vaccine coverage. Higher dog coverage protects the population by decreasing the number of rabid pups that can infect humans. This might lead to the medium term as reduced prevalence of rabies conditions locally. This assumes that the community is able to recognize the signs or symptoms of rabies and seeks identification and treatment to health facilities that are able to detect them.


With less rabies circumstances locally, less patients will improve into problems that lead to fatality, hence lowering rabies-related deaths in the long run. This assumes the city patients are willing to be cared for once diagnosed. This also assumes health system reforms on circumstance management nor technological advances in treatment of rabies experienced no affect in change in mortality.


Using the intervention's reasoning model, a process evaluation study is proposed with three assisting objectives from a mix of evaluation theories to provide more all natural and practical advice about the results of the involvement. These objectives are as follows:

Table 1: Research Objectives


Key regions of concern

  1. Understand the extent to that your intervention was implemented
  • Implementation (fidelity, reach and dosage)
  1. Test the validity of the primary assumptions in practice
  • Mechanisms of impact (relationships, alternative pathways)
  • Context
  1. Determine guidelines that can be replicated in future roll-outs
  • Implementation
  • Mechanisms of Impact
  • Context

The first goal (reflective of execution theory) was chosen to determine if successful implementation was achieved and can be related to the results. The next goal (reflective of intervention theory) was chosen to understand if hypothesized mechanisms-of-change were understood of course, if other mechanisms have emerged to contribute to the results. The third goal (reflective of realist theory) seeks to understand the best mechanisms to achieve intended effects of the intervention for future reference point in similar studies and plan implications.

Evaluation Overview

The process analysis team created a 24-month analysis plan that will focus on key aspects of the research objectives believed to add most to the ends in the intervention arm of the research. Figure 2 provides general summary of the domains, chosen from the assumptions from the reasoning model.

Figure 2. Research Domains


The analysis will be achieved in four stages, implemented carefully with the timeline of the impact analysis/research team across two years. General methods and concentrate on population for the process evaluation are the following:

Figure 3. Method Overview

At pre-intervention (month 0), questions on knowledge behaviour and procedures (KAP) regarding rabies and the community framework will be added as rider questions to the researcher's baseline study. HCWs will be asked to complete a questionnaire on personal data (monetary status), relations with the city (social status), and KAP regarding rabies. Concentration group conversations (FGD) will be achieved with the city to gain deeper insight into the community context that may impact the treatment, and with HCW to assess their perceptions on the interventions. Health system documents (policies, care guidelines, municipality initiatives, etc. ) will be evaluated to look at changes in treatment management and technological advances that have taken place.

During intervention (month 1-24), immediate observation and file review will be achieved to determine fidelity, reach and dosages of each of the activities during implementation. All of the activities on training, formulation of community strategies, do of vaccination days and nights will be straight seen by at least three research workers to comprehend how interactions happen. Value judgements should be arranged by at least 2/3 of the team present during the activity. Do of other activities will be evaluated from monitoring documents (attendance sheet, accomplishment reports of each HCW, pre- and post-training test results, post-activity feedback varieties) from the implementation team.

At post-intervention (month 24), baseline quantitative and qualitative information with be compiled very much like pre-intervention solutions to enable evaluation of changes from baseline values. The final FGDs with the community and HCWs will also be used as a workshop to create an agreed cognitive map of guidelines within the intervention that donate to its success.


Surveys, questionnaires and FGDs are intentionally scheduled only at pre- and post-intervention as the likelihood of the study team influencing both community recognition and proposal through these initiatives are high. The 3rd objective of the procedure evaluation is to check out best context-practice mixes that may be replicated in future runs of the program and conducting these assessments mid-intervention may become mediator that will skew the results favorably and affect the program and policy tips of the analysis. Direct observation and document review will be done throughout the activities of the involvement to assess carry out of activities occurring.


Household surveys combined to the research will use purposive sampling of community households considering geographic factors and socio-economic position. FGD members will be chosen using purposive sampling to represent different groupings and community areas. For quantitative examination, all of the data from questionnaires and document reviews will be used during research.

Analysis plan

Quantitative aspects of the study will be analyzed through descriptive statistics to show regularity and runs of reactions. Qualitative aspects of the study will be examined through causal modelling with mediation and mediator examination in summary the responses. Issues and best practices will be motivated from post-intervention qualitative analysis using stakeholder cognitive mapping to acknowledge a generalizable process.

Domains, research questions, research methods, indications, and frequency are summarized in Desk 3:

Table 3. Methods and Indicators


Research question/s







Was conduct of the treatment activities done as supposed? Were adaptations done necessary?

Direct observation


  • Checklist score based on module guide
  • Value judgement score based on arrangement of 2/3 observers

During each activity (training, formulation of community strategy, vaccination days)

What adaptations were perceived to be more successful by the HCW?

Document - reviews forms


  • Responses

After each activity


Were effective HCW recruited for the treatment?

Direct observation


  • Value judgement score from requirements (positive influence in the community, capacity to comprehend training and perform vaccination, recognized willingness to get involved) based on arrangement of 2/3 researchers

Combination of observations from training, community proposal activities, vaccination days

How many family members were influenced by the community strategies?

Document - attendance


  • Attendance to community engagement activities

Total of most activities during entire of intervention


Was training new to the guests/ was there added knowledge gained? Which aspects were supplied successfully?

Document - responses forms


  • Views on inclination for instructing methods/ topics

After each activity

Was knowledge from training appropriate and retained?

Document -

test results


  • Scores on tests and come back demonstrations

During original training and retraining

Are the inputs (esp. incentives) and initial activities (i. e. training, mentoring) given adequate for HCW to execute their role to the best of their abilities?



  • Responses (qualitative)

Twice (month 0 and 24)

Are the way to obtain inputs adequate to perform the treatment?

Document review


  • Incidence of stock outs during vaccination days

After each activity



Were community strategies produced by HCW unanimously made the decision and completed by the individual?

Direct observation


  • Strategy formulation process dynamics, value judgement predicated on arrangement of 2/3 researchers

After each activity



  • Strategies HCW agreed with
  • Personal conduct of strategies during engagement
  • Personal adaptations finished with strategies

Once (month 24)

Were incentives, training, and mentoring identified to be adequate by the HCW? Have personal inspiration of the HCW influence their performance of community strategies?



  • Percentage of incentives to household income
  • Time available
  • Personal motivations (checklist)

Once (month 1)



  • Responses (qualitative)

Twice (month 0 and 24)

Alternative pathways

Were other mechanisms beyond your intervention encouraging understanding and vaccination? Were there other reasons for non-attendance of happy individuals to vaccination days and nights?



  • Responses (qualitative)

Twice (month 0 and 24)

Household survey


  • Awareness of new community strategies
  • Willingness to participate in activities
  • Reasons for attendance and non-attendance (checklist)

Were there changes in the way the community interacts with pups not accounted for by the treatment?

Household survey


  • Presence of canines in the household
  • Number of interactions with dogs in the past 7 days

Did new health system reforms on circumstance analysis and management or technological advances in analysis and treatment take place?

Document -policies


  • Presence of new policies
  • Changes in budget and procurement of local government


What was the community's level of pre-intervention consciousness and engagement in rabies programs?



  • Knowledge of rabies pathophysiology
  • Knowledge and engagement to past rabies programs
  • Awareness and engagement

Twice (month 0 and month 24)

What will be the health-seeking procedures of the city? Do they understand and seek care for rabies?

  • Willingness to go to health center
  • Awareness of symptoms of rabies
  • Care-seeking behavior after diagnosis

What will be the community views on european medicine and canine vaccination?

  • View of european medicine
  • View of canine vaccination

What will be the community views on the role of puppies and their marriage with them? Which views promote taking pet dogs for vaccination?

  • View of dogs on being necessary, identified harm, importance, dependence on attention, dependence on medical care


[1] source

[2] Cite downloaded cleaveland

[3] source

[4] Source, reword since copied from assignment

More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
Check the price
for your assignment