UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, WINNEBA
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATTION
FACULTY OF SCIENCE EDUCATION
ASANTE MAMPONG
PREVALENCE OF GASTROINTESTINAL PARASITES IN DOGS IN
TECHIMAN, BONO EAST- GHANA.
BY
OFORI A. SAMUEL
i
ABSTRACT
Dogs are mainly successful canids, adapted to human environment worldwide. In spite
of the significant remuneration’s dogs proffer to humanity, dogs are reservoirs of
zoonotic pathogens counting numerous gastrointestinal parasites. Only few researches
work has been done on zoonotic parasite in dogs in Ghana. The aim of this study was
to determine the prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites and management practice in
dogs in Techiman. A total of 288 dog’s samples were examined for gastrointestinal
parasite using saturated sodium chloride as a floatation medium. Questionnaire was
administered to 230 dog owners regarding knowledge and management practices on
dogs. Statistical analysis was performed by using the SPSS for windows, version 20
(Chicago, USA). Chi-squared test and P-values of ≤ 0.05 was statistically considered.
Nine (9) parasitic species were identified, with an overall prevalence of 71.8%. Single
and multiple infection were observed in dogs examined (p>0.05). Ancylostoma
caninum (34%,), Uncinaria stenocephala (20%), Trichuris vulpis (10%,), Toxocara
caninum (20%,) and strongyloide spp. (6.5%) remains the top parasitic infections in the
study. The present study showed that intestinal parasite in dogs was common among
dogs in Techiman, some of which are zoonotic, commonly infecting dogs. Sex and
housing style, food type and Purpose of keeping dog were not significantly associated
with infection in dogs. But age and breeds were strongly associated with infection in
dogs(p<0.05). Majority of the owners (37%), however knew about canine rabies. It is
therefore recommended that public education on personal hygiene on dog owners,
veterinary care and education on zoonotic parasitic disease is of great importance in the
study area.
ii
CONTENTS
DECLARATION....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
DEDICATION .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. ii
CHARPTER ONE ..................................................................................................... 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Study .................................................................................. 1
CHARPTER TWO .................................................................................................... 6
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................... 6
2.1 Common Intestinal Parasites in Dogs. .............................................................. 6
2.1.1 Hookworms Prevalence ................................................................................. 6
2.1.2 Roundworm Prevalence ................................................................................. 8
2.1.3 Tapeworm Prevalence ................................................................................. 10
2.1.4. Whipworm (Trichuris vulpis) Prevalence ................................................... 11
2.2 Mites Infections in Dogs ................................................................................ 13
CHARPTER TWO .................................................................................................. 13
3. 0 METHODS AND MATERIALS ...................................................................... 14
3.1. Description of Study Area ............................................................................. 14
3.3. Sample Collections and Transport ................................................................. 16
3.4. Copro-microscopical Examinations. .............................................................. 16
3.5. Data Analysis ................................................................................................ 16
3.6. Ethical Approval and Consent to Owners ...................................................... 17
CHARPTER FOUR ................................................................................................. 18
iii
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION......................................................................... 18
4. 1. Results ......................................................................................................... 18
4.1.1 Dog Characteristics. .................................................................................... 18
4.1.2 Prevalence of Intestinal Parasite in Dogs. .................................................... 20
4.1.3 Prevalence of Intestinal Parasites in Dogs Based on Identified Risk Factors. 24
4.1.4 Demographic Characteristics of Dog Owners. ............................................. 26
4.1.5 Management Practice Among Dog Owners. ................................................ 28
4.1.6 Dog owner’s knowledge on zoonotic diseases and treatment. ...................... 30
4.2 Discussions .................................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER FIVE ..................................................................................................... 38
5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations..................................................................... 38
5.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 39
5.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................... 40
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 41
APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................... 47
iv
v
CHARPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Dogs are the mainly successful canids, adapted to human environment worldwide.
Companion animals, remarkably dogs, are valuable in the lives of individuals in several
societies throughout the world. They add to social, emotional and physical wellbeing
of equally adult and children, they ease diseases caused by stress (Kutdang et al. 2010).
Dogs also help improve our health, and teach children values and social skills in some
communities.
In spite of the significant remuneration’s dogs proffer to humanity, dogs are eminent
reservoirs of zoonotic pathogens counting numerous gastrointestinal helminths. These
parasites have negative health risk against infected dogs and causes mortality, notably
in puppies and adult dogs. Away from the health risk of dogs, many of the parasite
causes poor health conditions and serious cost-effective thrashing in other domestic
animals that serve as intermediate host. Moreover, Dogs harbor a variety of intestinal
parasites, some of which can also infect humans since human and dogs live in close
proximity. In view of this, some of the dog parasites such as Toxocara canis and
Ancylostoma sp., are reported to be a significant public health problem, especially in
developing countries and communities that are socio-economically disadvantaged
(Craig & Macpher-son, 2017). In these communities, poor levels of hygiene and
overcrowding, together with lack of veterinary attention and zoonotic awareness,
exacerbate the risk of disease transmission.
1
Global Parasitic infections of importance, affecting dogs and other companion animals
includes Ancylostoma species, Toxocara species and Diphylidum caninum (Sager et al.,
2016). In the United State, 36% of dogs was surveyed to harbor gastrointestinal
helminths of community health value (Samuel et al. 2011). African countries including
Nigeria, Ethiopia, Gabon and Tanzania, prevalence of helminths in these countries has
been estimated as 72.5% (Muhmuda et al., 2012), 89.3% (Mekbib et al. 2013), 91.4%
(Davoust et al. 2008) and 67.2% (Muhairwa et al. 2008) respectively. Common dog
zoonotic disease known in Ghana are rabies (Laryea et al. 2017), (Punguyire et al.,
2017), (Adomako et al. 2018), Visceral larva migrants, cutaneous larva migrants,
ancylostomiasis and giardiasis (emerging and re-emerging disease) (Awuni et al. 2019).
Scanty management and irresponsible ownership of dogs have become a source of
danger to residence and populace. In Ghana, copious intelligence reveals that, the
prevalence of helminths in dogs are statically widespread in certain parts of Ghana, due
to poor literacy, short of awareness and inadequate delicate cleanliness are amongst
obstacles of interventions programs (Johnson et al, 2015). Johnson et al. (2015)
reported on 62.6% total prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths in the Greater Accra
region, capital town of Ghana. Another study conducted in Mampong in the Ashanti
region, demonstrated high prevalence of Toxocara canis, Dipylidum Caninum and
Diphyllobothrium latum (Amissah-Reynolds et al, 2016). The manifestation of higher
number of street dog and non-confined dogs with piercing incidence of zoonotic
parasite that pollute the environment in the lack of open awareness of such risk is
terribly concerning. Therefore, constant studies across the country and constant
awareness establishment through empirical evidence are essential to initiate public
interest in responsible owners. However, the objective of the current research is
2
therefore to identify and estimate the prevalence of parasitic helminths of dogs in
Techiman, Bono East region.
1.2 Problem Statement
Parasitic diseases are the most important health risk in human populace and animals
throughout the globe of which Ghana is not excluded. Ghana as a tropical country, has
a wide range of climatic zones, which provide favorable conditions of veterinary
importance parasite, whose transmission are linked to regional temperature, rainfall and
humidity (Johnson et al., 2018). Techiman is a town with a lot of refuse dump in many
areas, the standard of sanitation practice is very low in the Region as compare to other
Regions in Ghana. Rabies infections increase drastically from 2006 to 2018 according
to Techiman veterinary service report (TVSR, 2018). Rabies infections in Techiman,
was as a result of lack of consistence treatment of dogs by dog owners (Punguyire et
al., 2017). Low level of sanitation practice pave way for parasitic transmission among
human and animals.
Over one third of the population in Techiman share close proximity with dogs. The risk
of dog diseases transmission is heightened by close contact with dogs, poor hand
hygiene, poor sanitation, and unvaccinated free-ranging dogs have been linked with
zoonotic transmissions (Ziblim et al. 2021). It is now necessary to create public
awareness to the people of Techiman and Ghana as whole on the transmission of
parasite from animals to human (zoonotic) by estimating the prevalence of helminths
in dogs, the knowledge and attitude of owners in zoonotic infections among the
residence of Techiman, Bono east Regional Capital.
1.3 Justification
3
Parasitic infections contribute greatly to increases in morbidity and mortality rates in
sub-Saharan Africa and the world as a whole. Due to this, efforts have been put in place
at specific veterinary centers in Ghana to reduce parasitic infections from dogs. Since
dogs are the most common animal which live together with human, people may get
infected when they become contact or consume an infected dog. There is therefore the
need for proper characterization of parasitic infections in dogs and their involvement in
disease transmission in human for Ghanaians and other people in endemic areas. Not
enough work has been done on this research topic in Ghana, or the few researches done
similar to it are yet to be published hence the need for further work to be carried out. It
is expected that this study will provide some data that will serve as basis for
management and control guidelines information for the fight against prevalence of
parasite and diseases transmission in dogs in Ghana.
1.4 Objective of the Study.
1.4.1 General Objective
The general objective of the study was to estimate the prevalence of helminths in dogs
in Techiman.
1.4.2 Specific objective
Specific objectives of the study were:
a. to estimate the prevalence of intestinal parasite in Techiman.
b. to elicit dog owner knowledge on zoonotic disease and disease treatment.
c. to accesses the management practice undertaken by dog owners.
1.5 Limitation.
4
Due to covid-19 pandemic, collection of sample becomes difficult where owners were
afraid to open their doors for strangers. Lack of fund to transport samples from
Techiman to Mampong for examination.
5
CHARPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Common Intestinal Parasites in Dogs.
The most common intestinal parasites in dogs in Ghana include the helminth species
Ancylostoma caninum (hookworm), Toxocara canis (roundworm), Trichuris vulpis
(whipworm), and Dipylidium caninum (tapeworm), as well as protozoan species of
Giardia sp. and Isospora sp. Species that were given special consideration in the present
study were A. caninum, T. canis, T. vulpis, Isospora (coccidia) and Dipylidium
caninum due to their ubiquitous status worldwide (Fontanarrosa et al. 2006)
2.1.1 Hookworms Prevalence
Hookworms are intestinal parasite that uses their hook-like mouthparts to anchor the
lining of the intestinal parasite of dogs, cats and other able infected animals (Dada et
al, 2016). They are microscopic and are about (2-3mm). Hookworm infections are
estimated about 576-740 million people worldwide (CDC). Among the most common
hookworms, Ancylostoma caninum and Ancylostoma tubaeforme are species specific
for dogs and cats respectively, while Ancylostoma bra-ziliense, Ancylostoma
ceylanicum and Uncinaria stenocephala affect both species (Prociv, 1998). In general
A. caninum, A. tubaeforme and U. stenocephala are spread especially in warm
countries (Dada et al, 2016). A study by Savilla (2019) reviews parasitic prevalence of
23% for Ancylostoma caninum, 8% for Trichuris vulpis, 7% for Toxocara canis and
4% for Isospora species. The studies show that hookworm infection was more common
in puppies in Western Virginia (Savilla, 2019). Hookworm infections was rampant in
the United States, particularly in the southeastern region, but improvements in living
6
conditions have greatly reduced hookworm infections (Samuel et al. 2010).
Hookworms are more common in warm, moist environments. Conditions of
overcrowding and poor sanitation contribute to infection. The presence of hookworm
eggs in the stool sample microscopically is the simplest way to diagnose hookworm
(Adegboye et al, 2017).
The life cycle of Ancylostoma caninum is illustrated in Figure 2.1 Ancylostoma caninum
infects dogs by oral or percutaneous infection, although it is unknown which mode of
infection is most common under natural conditions (Baker and Muller, 2015). Through
the percutaneous route of infection, the cycle includes skin penetration, followed by a
migratory phase, and finally an intestinal phase. After being deposited into soil through
an infected animal’s feces, infective larvae migrate to the surface of the soil or up blades
of grass or other vegetation and adhere to a host on contact (Prociv and Croese, 1996).
If adherence occurs on exposed skin or on a host without thick fur, invasion occurs
through the hair follicles or the larvae may enter under fragments of epidermal tissue
(Soulsby, 1969). Once larvae have penetrated the skin, they begin their migratory phase
that involves the liver and lung. Those that are able to enter venules and vessels are then
carried to the liver and pulmonary circulation by the heart, where they then break out
of capillaries and enter alveoli (Sowemimo and Oluyomi, 2009). From here, larvae
make their way up the bronchial tree to the esophagus, are swallowed, and then enter
the digestive tract where they begin their intestinal phase and grow to adulthood (CDC,
2017).
7
Figure 2.1. Life cycle of hookworms (CDC, 2017)
2.1.2 Roundworm Prevalence
Toxocara canis, Toxoascaris leonine and Baylisascaris procyonis remains the
identified roundworm which infect dogs across the globe (Dwight et. al. 2015). T. canis
and T. leonine are common in U.S.A, Asia and Africa. Toxocara canine are common
in puppies. Puppies are often infected with T. canine in utero via transplacental
transmission. Disease caused by infection with T. canis is most severe in young
puppies, and can occur before eggs are present in the feces (Dwight et. al, 2015). B.
procyonis is commonly found in raccoons throughtout much of U.S.A and Africa, but,
fortunately, infections in dogs are rare. Toxocara canine are common in puppies.
Puppies are often infected with T. canine in utero via transplacental transmission.
Toxocara canis is a relatively large nematode that can grow up to 10-18 cm in length.
Roundworms have 3 well-developed lips and no buccal capsule. They infect dogs
8
through complex somatic and tracheal routes of infection. Toxocara canis is considered
a significant parasite of young dogs since it also causes prenatal infection, as well as
infection via lactation (Lucio-foster et al. 2014).
The infective life cycle of T. canis begins when a thick-shelled, unembryonated egg is
passed in the environment through the feces of an infected host (Figure 2.3). An
incubation period of several days, depending on ambient temperature and conditions,
is required to develop an infective larva within the egg. When a dog ingests an egg, the
infective larva hatches from the egg into the duodenum, penetrates the intestinal wall,
and migrates via the circulation to the liver and then the lungs, taking in nutrients along
the way. In mature dogs, most larvae migrate from the lungs to the heart, and then are
infective eggs in contaminated soil. After ingestion, the eggs hatch and larvae penetrate
the intestinal wall and are carried by the circulation to a wide variety of tissues (liver,
heart, lungs, brain, muscle, eyes).
While the larvae do not undergo any further
development in these sites, they can cause severe local reactions that are the basis of
toxocariasis. (CDC, 2017).
9
Figure 2.2 Life Cycle of Toxocara ssp.
2.1.3 Tapeworm Prevalence
Tapeworms are flat, segmented gastrointestinal parasites of the cat and dog. Tapeworms
belong to the cestode family of intestinal worms. There are several types of tapeworms,
but the most common tapeworm species observed in dogs are Dipylidium caninum,
Taenia species, Diphyllobothrium latum and Spirometra mansonoides. Occasionally
they can be seen moving on the hairs around the anus, or more commonly, on the
surface of freshly passed feces. As the proglottid dries, it becomes a golden color and
eventually breaks open, releasing the fertilized eggs into the environment (Pulolo et al,
2006).
Dipylidium caninum was reported by Fanta et al in Ethiopia with a prevalence rate of
21% of Dipylidium caninum counting high counting negative effect against dogs. The
10
adult of Dipylidium caninum is around 40 to 50 cm (Wikipedia, 2020). The body is
made up of the head or scolex, the neck, and a segmented section called the strobilus.
The scolex has hooks for attachment. Each segment contains two proglottids.
Dipylidium caninum eggs are round to oval (average size 35 to 40µm: range 31 to
50µm) and contain an oncosphere that has 6 hooklets. Proglotids of D. caninum contain
characteristics egg packets that are round to ovoid and contains or more eggs each
(Fanta et al.2020).
2.1.4. Whipworm (Trichuris vulpis) Prevalence
Trichuris vulpis is a nematode that infects foxes and dogs. It is widely distributed in all
parts of the world and infects the cecum and colon of its hosts. Trichuris vulpis is a
relatively small worm, ranging from 4-7 cm in length. It is named for its characteristic
body shape that resembles a whip: an elongate body with a long, flagellum-like anterior
end that makes up approximately ¾ of its total body length, and a short, thick posterior
end.
The infective cycle of T. vulpis is simple and direct. Unembryonated eggs are passed
into the environment through the feces of an infected animal, where they undergo
development for 3-4 weeks under normal conditions, but have been reported to reach
their infectious stage within 9-10 days under optimal conditions. The eggs are
approximately 70-90 µm in length, have a distinct, double-plugged barrel shape, and
are encased within a thick shell (Figure 10). This thick outer membrane enables Tr.
vulpis to remain very resistant to environmental conditions.
11
In fact, Soulsby (1969) reports that whipworm eggs can persist in a suitable
environment for up to 5 years. They are very resistant to constant cold and heat (at
temperatures of -20oC and 112oC, respectively), as well as freezing, for as long as 12
days. Desiccation, however, is rapidly lethal to them. Infection is through the fecal-oral
route. When a dog ingests eggs from a contaminated area, the eggs enter the digestive
tract and develop in the large intestine. Here, they attach to the intestinal mucosa using
the narrow, anterior end that can penetrate deeply into the tissue (just before the
submucosa).
Figure 2.3 Life Cycle of Trichuris vulpis (Adapted from Novartis Animal Health
Inc., 2009).
12
2.2 Mites Infections in Dogs
Several mite species have been reported in dogs. In the dog, initially three different
species were reported (Demodex mites, sarcoptes mites and ear mites) (Ralf et al.
2020). Demodex canis is the most common demodectic mite of dogs. A longer-bodied
mite also was reported and named D. injai ("inja" being the Zulu name for "dog"). In
the genetic studies, the short-bodied mite was considered to be a morphological variant
(Ralf et al. 2020).
Sarcoptics scabies in dogs is highly contangious skin parasite (Alasaad et al. 2009). The
mites burrow into the skin and cause several itching, which can result in the formation
of scabs and hair loss ( Malik et al. 2006). It is a non seasonal parasite that can be found
in dogs of all ages and breeds. Scabies cause severe itching, so dogs that experince
prolonged scratching and hair loss are suspected. Symptoms are most often seen on the
ear flap, elbow, hocks, abdomen and chest of infested dogs (Kido et al. 2013). Recently,
scabies also affect the intestine of dogs (Olega et al. 2013). Scabies are zoonotic, so pet
owners that have close contact with their dogs may develop an itchy rash. After the dog
has been treated, symptoms usually dissapear (Milla et al. 2012).
CHARPTER TWO
13
3. 0 METHODS AND MATERIALS
3.1. Description of Study Area
The study was conducted in selected areas in Techiman north and south, Techiman is a
town which doubles as regional capital of the Bono East Region. The town is
strategically positioned as a gateway to the three Northern Regions in Ghana. The town
is located in latitude 7° ʼ13ʺ North and longitude 1°56ʼ06ʺ West on the Google map.
Estimated population of 104,212 people as at 2010 (PHC,2010). The individuals from
this town are recognized for their potentials in agriculture productions especially in tree
crops such as cocoa, cashew, palm produce, plantain and fruits. A considerable ratio of
the inhabitants keeps dogs and has limited access to veterinary services.
Figure 3.1 Map of Techiman
3.2. Study Design, Sample Technique and Sample Size
14
The scrutinize vicinity was divided into Two (2) category base on the forecast of
settlement. Category A focus on areas where the settlement is well arranged and good
personal hygiene and proper sanitations are observed. And Category B also depicts
areas where the settlement is poorly arranged with detached housing system and
impoverished environmental conditions.
A total of 288 samples were collected for the study, of which 230 sampled were
collected from community dogs whose owners were available at the time of sampling
and willing to have their dogs sampled, street samples were also collected from each
study area. The sampling was conducted between August and October, 2020. The
households owning dogs were identified after exploration visits have been made to the
community in august, 2020. The purpose of the study was explained to the owners and
their cooperation was sought for the collection of fecal samples.
Questionnaire was given to dog owners to obtain basic information such as
demographic characteristics of owners, demographic characteristics of dogs, breed
type, type of feed, defecation sites and zoonotic related knowledge of owners,
perception of disease transmitted by dogs. Areas such as market place, working place,
playing ground were highly considered for the street sample collections. The dogs were
grouped according to the age; aged 6 months (puppies), 7-12 months as young and 12
months and above as adult dogs. Breed of dogs was classified into exotic (mongrel,
Alsatians, Rottweiler etc) and local dogs (African shepherd).
15
3.3. Sample Collections and Transport
Freshly fecal dog samples were collected into clean, sterile, specimen zipbags labelled
with dog’s identification number (DOG ID), age and sex of dogs, purpose and type of
breeds. The fecal samples were preserved by iceberg not more than 24 hours before
examination. The samples were transported to the parasitological laboratory in the
University of Education, Mampong campus to processing for the recovery of helminths
eggs.
3.4. Copro-microscopical Examinations.
All samples were grossly examined for the discovery of matured parasites or eggs.
Then, 3 grams of each stool sample were submitted to a qualitative copro-microscopic
technique by using floatation fluid. Three (3) grams of each stool were stirred in 15 ml
of floatation fluid, and poured into a test tube using a net strainer to remove all kinds
of debris. A convex meniscus was leave at the top of the tube by topping off the test
tube with floatation fluid gentle, a coverslip was carefully placed for at least 10 mins,
and then placed on a clean slide for microscopy. Each sample was examined under 10x
and 40x magnifications, and parasitic elements were morphometrically and
morphologically examined according to existing keys.
3.5. Data Analysis
With the statistical analysis of the data, the dogs were grouped by age (6 months and
below, 7-12 months, 13-18 months and above), gender (female and male), Breeds (local
and exotic), purpose keeping dog (security, companion, hunting and breeding) and
confined, unconfined and street samples. The overall prevalence for all parasites and
the particular prevalence of each helminth were determined. Statistical analysis was
16
performed by using the SPSS for windows, version 25 (Chicago, USA). Differences in
parasite prevalence between subgroups were determined using the Chi-squared test and
p-values of ≤ 0.05 were considered significant. Parasites with low prevalence values
(i.e. below 4.0%) were not included in the statistical analysis.
3.6. Ethical Approval and Consent to Owners
Permission was obtained from the Regional Veterinary Service in Techiman. Individual
consent from dog owners was obtained prior to sample collections from their dogs.
17
CHARPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4. 1. Results
4.1.1 Dog Characteristics.
A total of 288 samples were collected from confined dogs (115, 40%), unconfined dogs
(124, 43.1%) and 49 (17.1%) street samples from the sampled vicinity. Out of the 115
confined dogs, 9 (3.1%) were from street vendors. The dogs examined, consisted of
125 (52.3%) males and 114 (47.7%) females which were confined and unconfined. All
dog owners agreed to participate and completed the questionnaires provided. Table 4.1
summarizes the differences in dog characteristics and the purpose of keeping dogs in
Techiman.
Most of the dogs were puppies with 45 (39.1%) confined and 60 (48.4%) unconfined
dogs, 98 were young dogs, of which 58 (48.6%) confined and 42 (33.9%) unconfined
dogs. Adult dogs recorded in both cases were very few: 14 (12.2%), 22 (17.7%)
confined and unconfined dogs respectively (Table 4.1). Local dogs (Africa shepherd
172, 72%) and crossbreeds (35, 14.6%) dominated the dogs sampled. Others were
exotic breeds which included Great Danes (2, 6.3%), Mongrels (15, 47%), Rottweiler
(5, 15.6%), Boerboel (4, 12.5%), Alsatians (3, 9.4%) and Doberman (3, 9.4%). No dog
owners acquired his dogs commercially. Most of the owners obtained their dogs from
friends (150, 63%) and 89(37.2%) dogs were acquired from street vendors, this was
statistically significance (p< 0.05) Table 4.1. Most of the owner kept their dogs for
security (93, 39%) reasons in Techiman. Thirty one percent (31%) of dog owners keep
18
their dogs purposely for companion, others hunting 56(23.4%), Breeding 11(4.6%) and
5(2.1%) were rear for no reason (figure 4.1).
Table 4.1 Characteristics of Dogs
Variables
Unconfined
Total (%)
p-value
Confined
Sex
Age
Male
65
60
125(52.3%)
Female
50
64
114(47.7)
<6 Months
45
60
105(44%)
56
42
98(41%)
Months
14
22
36(15.1%)
Local
74
98
172(72%)
Exotic
22
10
32(13.4%)
19
16
35(14.6%)
vendors
38
51
89(39%)
Friends
77
73
150(63%)
Commercial
0
0
0.62
0.05
6to12
months
>12
Breeds
0.04
Cross
breeds
Street
Source
Purpose
Security
0
93(39%)
51
42
0.06
Companion
54
20
74(31%)
Hunting
0
56
56(23.4%)
Breeding
5
6
11(4.6%)
No reason
5
0
5(2.1%)
19
0.45
4.1.2 Prevalence of Intestinal Parasite in Dogs.
Out of 288 dogs examined, 207 (71.8%) were positive for the presence of at least one
of the gastrointestinal parasites, making a total prevalence of parasite identified in
Techiman 71.8%. Total prevalence of intestinal parasite in confined dogs were 60.8%
(n=70), whiles it was 77% (n=96) in unconfined dogs and 83.6% (n=41) in street dogs
(Table 4.2). The prevalence of intestinal zoonotic parasite in dogs were not statistically
significance among kinds of dogs examined (p>0.108).
Table 4. 2 Overall Parasitic Prevalence in Dogs
Kinds of dog
No.
No.
Prevalence
Chi-
examined
infected
(%)
square
Confined dogs
115
70
60.8%
Unconfined
124
96
77%
49
41
83.6%
2.048
p-value
0.108
dogs
*Street dogs*
P- Value for observed difference in prevalence (10.8%) of intestinal parasite infection
in dogs sampled from Techiman in confined and unconfined samples.
Figure 4.1 Prevalence of Intestinal Parasite in Relation to Confined and
Uconfined Dogs
42%
58%
20
Uncofined
Confined
Out of 288 dogs examined, nine (9) intestinal parasites were microscopically identified.
Ancylostoma caninum (34%), Uncinaria stenocephala (20%), Trichuris vulpis (10%),
Toxocara caninum (20%) remain the top four parasitic infection in confined and
unconfined dogs. Number of identified parasite species were higher in unconfined dog
(65.3%) than confined dogs (34.7%) but was not statistically significant (p> 0.05).
Demodex mite and moniezia species were strangely identified in the study (Table 4.3).
Unknown mites and mite eggs were also identified in the study (figure 4.3). Similar
parasitic species infection was observed in street dogs examined except Giardia lamblia
which was not found in confined and unconfined dogs (Table 4.4).
Table 4.3
Species Wise Prevalence of Intestinal Parasite in Confined and
Unconfined Dogs
Parasite
Confined
Unconfined
Total
Prevalence
(%)
Acylostoma caninum
16
60
76
34
Uncinaria stenocephala
21
24
45
20
Trichuris vulpis
6
16
22
10
Toxocara caninum
19
26
45
20
Moniezia
1
4
5
2.3
Taenia species
3
3
6
3
Dipylidum caninum
4
3
7
3.5
Strongeloide stercoralis
7
7
14
6.3
Demodex mite
0
2
2
0.9
21
Table 4.3 Species Wise Prevalence of Parasitic Infection in Street Dogs
Parasite
Street Dogs
Percentage (%)
Acylostoma caninum
21
45.6
Uncinaria stenocephala
3
6.4
Trichuris vulpis
4
8.7
Toxocara caninum
4
8.7
Moniezia
4
8.7
Taenia species
2
4.3
Dipylidum caninum
2
4.3
Strongeloide stercoralis
5
11.2
Giardia lamblia
1
2.2
Figure 4.2 prevalence of intestinal parasite in confined and unconfined
dogs
Demodex mites
Strongeloide…
Parasite
Dipylidum caninum
Taenia species
Moniezia
Toxocara caninum
Trichuris vulpis
Uncinaria…
Ancylostoma caninum
0
10
20
30
40
Number of dogs infected
22
50
60
70
80
Figure 4.3
Identified Parasites
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
j
h
I
k
l
a- Dipilydum caninum, b-Toxocara caninum, c-Trichuris vulpis, d- Moniezia benedeni,
e- Moniezia espansa, f- strongeloide stercolaris, g-Hookworm, h- Demodex mite, iTaenia species, j- gardia lamblia, k and l are unknown mite and mite egg respectively.
23
4.1.3 Prevalence of Intestinal Parasites in Dogs Based on Identified Risk Factors.
Out of 125 males and 114 female dogs examined, 68.8% (n=86) and 70.7% (n=80) were
infected with gastrointestinal parasites respectively. However, there was no
significance difference (p>0.05) in the prevalence of gastrointestinal parasite infections
between male and female dogs. Likewise, there was no significant difference (p> 0.05)
in the prevalence of parasitic infection between the purpose of keeping dogs, security
(65,70%), companion (50, 67.5%), hunting (40, 71%) and dogs that are rear for no
reason (3, 60%), in this study. The highest prevalence was recorded in puppies (103,
98%) follow by young (55, 56%) and adult (8, 22%). Significant difference of infection
was observed between age in dogs (p< 0.05).
There was significance difference between local (136, 79%), exotic (15, 65.6%) and
crossbreeds (15, 42.9%) of confined and unconfined dogs’ infection(p<0.05). In regards
to the mode of feeding, the prevalence of parasite in dogs fed from the floor was 95.4%
whiles 46.3% fed in the plate with a significant variation (p< 0.05) between them.
Category (A) area recorded lower infection rate (46.4%) as compare to Category (B)
area infection rate (83.7%). The difference observed was significant at 0.05 level.
Sources of obtaining dogs were significance risk factors identified in this study. Dogs
from street vendors maintains highest prevalence of 93% whereas those from friends
were 61%.
24
Table4.5 Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Parasite in Dogs Base on Identified Risk
Factors.
Variables
Sex
Age
Breeds
Purpose
No.
No.
Total
examined
infected
(%)
Male
125
86
68.8%
Female
114
80
70.7%
<6Months
105
103
98%
6-12Months
98
55
56%
> 12Months
36
8
22%
Local
172
136
79%
Exotic
32
15
65.6%
Cross breeds
35
15
42.9%
Security
93
65
70%
Companion
74
50
67.5%
Hunting
56
40
71%
Breeding
11
8
72%
No reason
5
3
60%
P-value
0.464
0.036
0.045
0.742
Table 4. 6 Prevalence of Intestinal Parasite in Relation to Area of Sampling
Area
No. examined
No. infected
Percentage
P-value
(%)
Category A
110
51
46.40
Category B
178
156
88
25
0.034
Figure 4.5 Prevalence of Intestinal
Parasite in Relation to Dogs breeds
Figure 4.4 Prevalence of Intestinal
Parasite in Relation to Dog Sex
120
Number of dogs
Number of Dogs
140
100
80
60
40
20
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
Local
Male
Sex
Number Examined
Cross
breeds
Breeds
Number infected
Number Examined
Number infected
Figure 4.7 Prevalence of Intestinal Parasite in
Relation to Function of dog
Number of Dogs
Figure 4.6 Prevalence of Intestinal
Parasite in Relation to Age of dog
120
Number of Dogs
Exotic
Female
100
80
60
40
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
0
<6 Months 8-12
months
>12
Months
Function
Age
Number examined
Number Examined
Number infected
Number infected
4.1.4 Demographic Characteristics of Dog Owners.
Out of 288 dog samples drawn, questionnaire was administered to 230 dog owners. One
hundred and thirty-four (134, 46.8%) were collected from residence in well planned
settlement (Category A) whiles 154 (54.2%) were from area with poor sanitation and
unplanned settlement (category B). Demographic characteristics of males (151, 65.7%)
and female (79, 34.3%) owners were obtained. Twenty-two (22, 9.6%) owners were
26
below 20 years, between the age of 21 to 40 recorded 108(46.9%) owners and
100(43.5%) owners were above 40 years (Table 4.6).
Owners with no educational background were 115(67.4%). The remaining owners have
non-formal, primary, senior and tertiary education as 15(6.5%), 22(9.6%), 20(8.7%)
and 58(25.2%) respectively. Most of the owners were farmers (102, 52.2%), others
occupation included trading (58, 25.2%), civil personnel (51, 22.1%) and unemployed
owners (19, 8.3%).
27
Table 4.7 Demographic Characteristics of Dog Owner’s in Techiman
Variables
Sex
Age
Occupation
Educational Level
Frequency (N)
Percentage (%)
Male
151
65.7
Female
79
34.3
< 20 years
22
9.6
20-40 years
108
46.9
>40 years
100
43.5
Farming
102
52.2
Trading
58
25.2
Civil Personnel
51
22.1
Unemployed
19
8.3
No education
151
50
Non-Formal
15
6.5
Basic
22
9.6
Senior High
20
8.7
Tertiary
58
25.2
4.1.5 Management Practice Among Dog Owners.
Table 4.7 summarizes the management practice of confined and unconfined dogs per
the response from their owners. It is treacherous that, all the dog owners who completed
the questionnaires did not treat their dogs before introducing dogs in their houses
(p<0.001). Interestingly, 82% of the sampled houses, have children below the age of
five (5) and more than half of the children play with the dog and this increase the chance
of helminths transmission among individual. Most of the owners do not provide place
for their dogs to defecate. All unconfined dogs were allowed to defecate in grass, soil
or any other places which saved as a risk factor of transmission (p< 0.0001). Small
28
proportion of owners provided their dogs with dog feed and raw meat product, the rest
of the dogs fed from owner leftovers food (Table 4.7). Almost half of the confined and
unconfined dog owners rear other animals such as Cat, Goat, Sheep, Rabbit etc, as
53(46.1%) and 76(61%) respectively. It was statistically significant that, most of the of
confined dogs (91%) were fed on plate which is good management practice to prevent
disease transmission whiles 97.5% of unconfined dogs were also fed on the floor (p <
0.012) which saved as a risk factor to increase parasitic transmission among dogs.
Table 4.8 Management Practices Among Confined and Unconfined Dog Owners.
Variables
Confined
Unconfined
Total (%)
pvalue
Was there any treatment
before introducing the dog in
the house
Yes
0
0
0
No
115
124
239(100%)
Yes
100
95
195(82%)
No
15
19
34(18)
Leftovers
53
102
155(65%)
Dog feed
21
0
21(9%)
Raw meat product
41
22
63(26%)
plate
105
3
108(45%)
Floor
10
121
131(55%)
0.0001
Children under 5 years in
the house
0.001
Type of feed given to dog
0.04
Medium of feeding dogs
29
0.76
4.1.6 Dog owner’s knowledge on zoonotic diseases and treatment.
Only 13% of dog owners provided consistence health care for their dogs of which none
of the unconfined dog’s owners provided regular checkup to their dogs. Vaccination
against rabies were quite credible in confined dog owners (47.8%) as compare to
unconfined dog owners (16.8%). Interestingly, more than half of dog owners with
unconfined dogs and about one third of confined dog owners did not perceive diseases
transmitted by dogs as a health problem. Less than 10% of dog owners mentioned
helminths (worm) as a health problem but about two third were aware of the risk of
rabies transmission.
30
Table 4.9 Dog Owners’ Knowledge on Zoonotic Diseases and Treatment
Variable
Confined
Unconfined
Total
%
75
32%
P-value
Vaccination status for
rabies
Every year
55
20
None
60
104
164
68%
15
0
15
6%
100
124
224
94%
Yes
47
15
62
26%
No
68
109
177
74%
Scabis
11
0
11
4.60%
Rabis
50
39
89
37%
Dog bite wound
42
85
127
53%
Worms (Parasite)
10
0
10
4.10%
Dysentery
2
0
2
0.08%
Bacterial
0
0
0
0
Serious
84
45
129
54%
Not serious
31
79
110
46%
0.051
Do you go regular checkup
Yes
None
Are
you
aware
0.003
of
transmission of parasite
from dogs to human
0.04
Knowledge on possible
disease transmitted by
dogs
0.08
Perceptions of disease
transmitted by dog
31
0.46
4.2 Discussions
Nine (9) gastrointestinal parasitic species were identified in the study which are
documented worldwide as dog parasite, except Moniezia species to the best of our
knowledge. The parasites observed in this study have been reported in dogs and other
canids in different studies and locations within Ghana with a pronounced difference in
the prevalence except Moniezia species. The overall prevalence of intestinal parasites
reported in this study was 71.8%, which was similar to the prevalence reported by
Minnaar et al. 2012 in south Africa (72%). However, the Prevalence in this study was
higher than a prevalence reported by Johnson et al. 2015 in Greater Accra region of
Ghana (62.6%) and Amissah-Reynolds et al. 2016 in Mampong, Ashanti region of
Ghana (52.6%), Okoye et al. (2011) in stray dogs in Nigeria (52.6%), Wyckliff et al.
(2017) in Kenya (35.29%), and Sowemimo & Ayanniya, (2017) in Nigeria (41.7%).
The prevalence in this study was lower than the prevalence reported by Tamerat et al.
(2015) in Ethiopia (91%), Komatangi (2005) in Cameroon (88.5%) and Abere et al.
(2013) in Ethiopia (84.78%).
The prevalence of intestinal parasites varies significantly from one locality to another
depending on the parasite species involved, the host species, management practices,
anthelminthic treatment, diagnostic procedures use and local climatic conditions such
as humidity, temperature, rainfall (Katagiri & Oliveira-Sequeira, 2008). This study
showed higher prevalence than the study by stray dog in Nigeria reported by Okoye et
al. (2011), Johnson et al. (2015), Amissah–Reynolds et al. (2016), this might be as a
result of the rich vegetation, climatic conditions and poor sanitary practice in Techiman.
Also, epidemiological, ecological differences and floatation method used, may account
for difference in distribution and prevalence of gastrointestinal parasite. Puppies harbor
32
intestinal parasite than young and adult dog and more puppies were examined in this
work. This might also be the reason why the total prevalence was higher as compared
to other works in Ghana.
The parasite identified in this study were Hookworm (Ancylostoma caninum, Uncinaria
stenocephala), Trichuris vulpis, Toxocara caninum, Dipylidium caninum, Taenia
species, Strongeloide stercoralis, Moniezia and Demodex mite. Some of these
helminths have been identified and reported in Ghana (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2016;
Johnson et al., 2015; Anteson & Corkish, 1975) and other parts of the world with
geographical, ecological, epidemiological and seasonal variations in prevalence
(Alvarado-Esquivel et al., 2015) in Mexico and Cantó et al. (2011) in Spain, Ngui et
al. (2014) in Malaysia, Kutdang et al. (2010) in Nigeria, Davoust et al. (2008) in Gabon.
The predominant parasites encountered in this study were Hookworms (Ancylostoma
spp, 34% and Uncinaria stenocephala,20%) which supports the findings Biu, et al,
(2012) in which Ancylostoma spp and Uncinaria stenocephala were predominant. Biu,
et al. 2012 reported that the most common parasite in dogs was Ancylostona caninum
with a prevalence of 51.9% infected dogs in a sample of 138 dogs. A study from
Ethiopia found frequent parasite being Uncinaria stenocephala (28.89%), which back
support the findings of this studies (Zewdu et al. 2010). Ancylostoma caninum (2.2%)
and uncinaria stenocepha (2%) prevalence in Muhamed and Al-barwary (2016) was
lower as compared to this study. Hookworm (Ancylostoma caninum 34%, Uncinaria
stenocephala 20%) and Toxocara canis (20%) were significant in this study due to their
health implications considering the high prevalence of intestinal parasite infections
recorded in dogs and the close association shared between dogs and human. Hookworm
33
(Ancylostoma caninum and Uncinaria stenocephala) risk of transmission seems to be
discernible. Ancylostoma caninum are largely restricted to temperate, subtropical and
tropical regions. Johnson et al. 2015, estimated 47% of hookworm infection in their
study which showed lower prevalence than recent study.
The prevalence of Toxocara canis in dogs examined in this study was 20%. The highest
occurrences of Toxocara canis presents a serious risk that might increase the possibility
of many children under five years in the study vicinity harboring Toxocara canis.
Studies in the America (USA) have shown that a prevalence of 7.1% for Toxocara canis
infection among dog population should be considered a risk factor to children under
five years (CDC, America, 2020). It was observed in recent studies that, Toxocara canis
infection in puppies was higher than in young and adult dogs, and this agrees with other
studies in the USA, Nigeria, Gabon and Ghana. The high prevalence of Toxocara canis
infections in puppies is through trans-mammary and transplacental routes in the first
few days of puppy’s life which increase the occurrence of the parasite at an early age.
The acquisition of natural immunity by adult dogs decreases the rate of Toxocara canis
infections. This observation also agreed with Johnson et al., 2015 and Kebede, 2019.
The prevalence of Trichuris vulpis (10%) in the present study was higher than the 3%
incidence observed in Yacob Hailu et al., 2017. Zewdu et al. 2010 reported 13. 9%
prevalence of Trichuris which shows higher prevalence than this study.
This study also recorded a lower prevalence of D. caninum infection than already
reported prevalence by Johnson et al. (2015) in Ghana (13.1%). However, prevalence
of Dipylidium caninum was higher than the prevalence reported in Poland (Tylkowska
et al., 2010) and Ghana (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2016). Postmortem examination of
dogs by Zewdu et al. (2010) and Anteson & Corkish, (1975) revealed significantly
34
higher prevalence than the prevalence reported from copromicroscopy in this study. It
is believed that D. caninum eggs are focally distributed and are rarely seen in stool due
to the intermittent nature of proglottid shedding (Barnett et al, 2013), hence necropsy
is more effective in recovering D. caninum (Minnaar & Krecek, 2001). It is therefore
likely that D. caninum infection in this current study was underestimated considering
the method of diagnosis that was used.
In the best of our knowledge, moniezia species have not been reported in any study in
dogs in Ghana. Our research reported 3.9% of moniezia species in nine (9) out of 288
dogs examined. Both of the species of moniezia (moniezia expansa and moniezia
benedeni) were identified. Moniezia expansa is the tapeworm that commonly affects
sheep and goats. Moniezia benedeni is more common in cattle and can also affect sheep
and goat. Dogs can serve as intermediate host for moniezia species (Barriga, 1994). Our
study reported moniezia in dogs because; the unconfined dogs always feed from the
carcass of sheep, goat and cattle from a nearby slaughter house. This study has proving
that, moniezia can affect dogs who accidentally ingest carcass of sheep, goat and cattle
infected with moniezia. In this study we could not do autopsy to support our findings
as to the mechanism and conditions that pave way for moniezia infection in dogs,
therefore more investigations are needed. Other parasites were also recorded with low
prevalence rate. Those parasites include strongyloide spp. (6.3%), this was higher than
1.9% reported by Muhammed and Al-barway (2016) and lower than 7.1% reported by
Hasson (2014) and Taenia species with a prevalence of 3% of a total of 288 dogs
examined.
The study also seeks to compare confined and unconfined dog infection in the
community. It was observed that, unconfined dogs (77%) infections were higher than
35
confined dogs (60%) but was not statistically significant. It was observed in this study
that, multiple infections dominated in unconfined dogs than in confined dogs, this was
as the result of dogs feeding from fecal contaminated environment. With dogs of age
up to 1 and half years, prevalence of helminths was significantly higher in puppy (98%)
and young (56%) than in adult dogs (22%). Results seems to be consistent with findings
of Jones et al. 2012 and Abere et al. 2019. This study reveals that, intestinal parasites
prevalence is strongly associated with age and is higher in puppy and younger dogs
than adults. This is because of the underdeveloped immune system of puppy and young
dogs, and effect of lactation which is the major route of parasite transmission to the
puppy and young dogs. Again, lower prevalence in older dogs is due to the fact that
parasite specific immunity usually acquired as the dog ages or probably as consequence
of single or repeated exposures to parasites.
There was no significant difference in helminth prevalence among sexes in this study.
Female dogs had a higher helminth prevalence than male dogs, but the difference was
not statistically significant other researchers have reported similar findings. Idika et al.
(2017) reported higher prevalence in male dogs but did not report statistical
significance. This is in agreement with reports by Amissah-Reynolds et al. (2016),
Tamerat et al. (2015), Wyckliff et al. (2017), Abere et al. (2013), Jones et al. (2011)
and Ehimiyein et al. (2018). However, this finding is in contrast to reports by Adamu
et al. (2012) and Alvarado-Esquivel et al. (2015) who reported significant differences
in infection among sexes. There was significant association between breed of dog and
parasite prevalence in this study. Significant difference in prevalence among breeds
have been reported by Idika et al. (2017) in Nigeria. A number of reports have also
reported significant association among breeds with local dogs having higher helminth
36
prevalence (Abere et al., 2013, Idika et al., 2017; Awoke et al., 2011). The high
prevalence of infection in local dogs is probably due to the different management
practices given to local dogs. It is suspected that because exotic dog breeds are
expensive, they are appreciated and given proper veterinary and husbandry care and are
confined. On the contrary, local dogs are cheaper, common, less appreciated and are
allowed to freely roam and either become communal, unconfined or stray dogs where
they are most likely to harbour infections from other dogs or from the food they eat
from the streets (Idika et al., 2017).
A greater proportion of dog owners with low socio-economic status who owned local
dogs did not exercise proper veterinary and management practices. They exposed their
dogs to infections by allowing unrestricted maneuverability of their dogs. Resources
and education were lacking and owners may exercise veterinary care only when the dog
is obviously sick, hence the high prevalence in local dogs.
Highly significant association was found between deworming status and
gastrointestinal parasite prevalence in this study. This is in line with reports from
Alvarado-Esquivel et al. (2015) in Mexico. Other authors however, have found no
significant association between deworming and helminth prevalence. A chi-square test
of association revealed that type of feed was significantly associated with parasitic
infection in dogs. Ahmed et al. (2014), found statistical significance in helminth
prevalence among dogs that were fed dry food and uncooked food. Zelahem &
Mekonnen (2012) also found significant difference in prevalence among dogs that were
fed raw food and dogs that were fed cooked and mixed food. Regarding the
management practice and awareness of dog owners, most dogs were allowed to roam
37
freely and were observed to defecate in areas other than their immediate surrounding.
It is, therefore, certain that dogs are acting as disseminators of parasite eggs and suitable
reservoir of adult parasite thereby increasing the net exposure of infective stages in
contact with the human population and other animals.
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
38
5.1 Conclusions
In conclusion, the present study showed that intestinal parasites in dogs are very
common in Techiman, some of which are zoonotic, commonly affected both confined
and unconfined dogs. The prevalence as reported in recent and other studies in Ghana
shows that, helminthiasis is one of the encountered infections in dogs in Ghana. Some
of the parasite identified in dogs in this study were of zoonotic important. Ancylostoma
caninum and uncinaria stenocephala Toxocara canis and Dipylidum were the common
helminthozoonotic parasite recorded in this study. Strangely, moniezia species were
identified in this study.
Sex and housing style, food type and Purpose of keeping dog were not significantly
associated with infection in dogs. Local dog breeds were managed under poor
management practices as compared to exotic breeds. Significantly more local dogs were
unconfined and no “veterinary care and anthelminthic treatment”. Few owners knew
about canine zoonotic helminths and zoonotic protozoan parasites. Majority of the
owners (37%), however knew about canine rabies, yet most dog owners who owned
local dogs did not vaccinate their dogs against rabies. Dog owners who kept exotic
breeds were found to have good knowledge on dog management and positive attitudes
toward dogs than those who kept local dogs.
39
5.2 Recommendations
1. The results shows the need for education of dog owners and routine surveillance
programs and preventive health measures such as vaccination and parasite control
strategies to prevent dogs from infection
2. It is also recommended that public education on personal hygiene on dog owners,
veterinary care and prevention of zoonotic parasitic disease is of great importance in
the study area.
3. It is also recommended that further research on dog parasite should employ molecular
techniques to determine their molecular prevalence and identification to the species
level.
4. A wider study that covers several other geographic regions will provide more
information on the prevalence and parasite distribution in companion animals.
40
REFERENCES
Abdi, J., Asadolahi,K., Maleki, M. H. and Hafez, A. A., 2013. Prevalence of helminth
infection of stray dogs in Ilam province. J. Paramedical Sci., 4(2),47–50.
Abere, T., Bogale, B. and Melaku, A., 2013. Gastrointestinal helminth parasites of pet
and stray dogs as a potential risk for human health in Bahir Dar town,
northwestern Ethiopia. Vet World 6(7),388-392.
Adomako BY, Baiden F, Sackey S, Ameme DK, Wurapa F, Nyarko KM, et al., 2018.
Dog Bites and Rabies in the Eastern Region of Ghana in 2013–2015: A Call for
a One-Health Approach. Journal of tropical medicine. 20.
Ahmed, S.J., Ryoo, N.K., Woo, S.J., 2014. Ocular toxocariasis: clinical features,
diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. Asia Pac. Allergy 4(3), 134–41.
Alvarado-Esquivel, C., Romero-Salas, D., Aguilar-Dominguez, M., Cruz-Romero, A.,
Ibarra-Preigo, N., & Perez-de-Leon, A. A. (2015). Epidemiological assessment
of intestinal parasitic infections in dogs at shelter in Veracruz, Mexico. Asian
Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine, 5(1), 34-39.
Amissah-Reynolds, P.K., Monney, I., Adowah, L.M., and Agyemang, S.O., 2016.
Prevalence of Helminths in Dogs and Owners’ Awareness of Zoonotic Diseases
in Mampong, Ashanti, Ghana. J. Parasitol. Res., Article ID 1715924, 6 pages.
dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/1715924.
Amissah-Reynolds, P.K., 2020. Zoonotic Risks from Domestic Animals in Ghana.
International
Journal
of
Pathogen
Research
4(3):
17-31.
DOI:
10.9734/IJPR/2020/v4i330113.
Awuni B, Tarkang E, Manu E, Amu H, Ayanore MA, Aku FY, 2019. Dog Owners’
Knowledge about Rabies and Other Factors That Influence Canine Anti-Rabies
Vaccination in the Upper East Region of Ghana. Tropical medicine and
Infectious Disease.;4(3):115.
41
Ayinmode, A.B., Obebe, O.O., and, Olayemi, E. 2016. Prevalence of potentially
zoonotic gastrointestinal parasites in canine faeces in Ibadan, Nigeria. Ghana
Med. J., 50(4), 201–206.
Anteson, R. K., & Corkish, J. (1975). An investigation of helminth parasites in well
cared for dogs in Accra. Ghana Med J, 14(3), 193-195.
Baker, John R. and Ralph Muller. Advances in Parasitology: Volume 36. 2015. San
Diego, CA. Pp. 1-35
Bennett, P., & Rohif, V. (2007). Owner-companion dog interactions: relationships
between demographic variables, potentially problematic behaviours, training
engagement and shared activities. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci, 102, 65-84.
Chomel, B.B.,2014. Emerging and re-emerging zoonoses of dogs and cats. Animals
(Basel)4(4), 434–445.
Ehimiyein, A., Maishanu, D., & Ehimiyein, I. (2018). Prevalence of gastrointestinal
and haemo-parasites in hunting dogs in Zaira, Nigeria. Sokoto Journal of
Veterinary Sciences, 16(3), 55-60.
Fanta.D.; Yohannes, G.W.; Abdi, R.D.; Abuna, F.; Ayana, D.; Waktole, H.; Amenu,
K.; Hiko, A.; Agga, G.E. (2020) Dipylidium caninum Infection in Dogs and
Humans in Bishoftu Town, Ethiopia. Diseases 2021, 9, 1. https://
dx.doi.org/10.3390/diseases9010001.
Fontanarrosa, María F., Darío Vezzani, Julia Basabe, and Diego F. Eiras, 2006. An
epidemiological study of gastrointestinal parasites of dogs from Southern
Greater Buenos Aires (Argentina): Age, gender, breed, mixed infections, and
seasonal and spatial patterns. Veterinary Parasitology. 136:283-295.
Gaunt, M.C. and Carr, A.P., 2011. A survey of intestinal parasites in dogs from
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Canadian Vet. J.,52(5), 497–500.
42
Ghana Statistical Service. (2014, October). 2010 Population and Housing Census:
District Analytical Report, Techiman Municipality. Retrieved May 15, 2021,
from Ghana Statistical Service: www.statsghana
Hailu, Y., Ayele, T., Fikru, R. and Basu, A.K., 2017. Gastrointestinal nematodes in
dogs from Debre Zeit, Ethiopia. Vet. Parasitol., 148, 144-148.
Idika, I.K., Onuorah, E.C., Obi, C.F., Umeakuana, P.C., Nwosu, C.O., Onah, D.N., and
Chiejina, S.N., 2017. Prevalence of gastrointestinal helminth infections of dog
in Enugu State, South Eastern Nigeria. Parasite Epidemiol Control, 2(3): 97–
104.
Johnson, S.A.M., Gakuya, D.W., Mbuthia, P. G., Mande, J.D., and Maingi, N., 2015.
Prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths and management practices for dogs in
the Greater Accra region of Ghana. Heliyon, 1(1), Article ID e00023.
Jones, O., Kebede, N., Kassa, T., Tilahun. G., Macias, C., 2012. Occurrence of bovine
hydatidosis and evaluation of its risk to humans in traditional communities of
Southern Region of Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Health Dev., 26(1), 43-48.
Kebede, N., Mitiku, A. and Tilahun, G., 2009. Hydatidosis of slaughtered animals in
Bahir Dar Abattoir, Northwestern, Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Hlth. Prod., 41, 4350.
Komatangi, M.C., 2005. Prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths of dogs in Dschang,
Cameroon. J. Cam. Acad. Sc., 5, 11-14.
Laryea D, Kyem G, Awittor F, Amoako YA, Owusu R, 2016. Scarcity of the rabies
vaccine and immunoglobulin: A potential for rabies outbreak in Ghana. APHA
Laryea DO, Ofori RO, Arthur J, Agyemang EO, Spangenberg K. (2017) Human Rabies
in Kumasi: A Growing Public Health Concern. African Journal of Current
Medical Research.;1(1).
43
Lucio-foster A, Barbecho JS, Mohammed HO, Kornreich BG, Bowman DD 2014.
Comparison of the prevalence of Toxocara egg shedding by pet cats and dogs
in the USA. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Pp. 5:1–3
Meyer, M.C. and Olsen, O.W., 1980. Essentials of parasitology. 5th edition, Brown,
Dubu-due, Iowa, USA, pp 298.
Muhamed TA, Al-barwary LTO (2016) Prevalence of Intestinal Parasites in the
Intestine of Dogs (Sheep-Keeper, Owned, Pet and Stray) in Duhok Province,
Kurdistan Region. J Vet Sci Technol 7: 379. doi: 10.4172/2157-7579.1000379.
Minnaar, W.N., Krecek, R.C. and Fourie, L.J., 2012. Helminths from a peri-urban
resource limited community in Free State Province, South Africa. Vet.
Parasitol., 107, 343-349.
Mirazaei, M., and Fooladi, M., 2012. The prevalence of intestinal helminths in owned
dogs in Kerman city, Iran. Asian Pacific J. Trop. Med., 13(1), 735-737.
Novartis Animal Health Inc. 2009. Head of a Roundworm seen under the microscope.
Retrieved August, 2021 from
http://www.ah.novartis.com/images/teasers/_common/roundworm_head.jpg.
Oliveira-Sequeira, T.C. Amarante, A.F. Ferrari, T.B. and Nunes. L.C., 2002.
Prevalence of intestinal parasites in dogs from Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Vet.
Parasitol., 103(1- 2), 19-27.
Paul, M. King,L. and Carlin,E. P.,2010. Zoonoses of people and their pets: a US
perspective on significant pet-associated parasitic diseases. Trends in Parasitol.,
26(4), 153–154.
Paulos, D., Addis, M., Fromsa, A. and Mekibib, B., 2012. Prevalence of gastrointestinal
helminthes among dogs and owner perception about zoonotic dog parasites in
Hawassa Town, Ethiopia. J. Pub. Hlth. Epid., 4(8), 205-209.
44
Perera, P.K., Rajapakse V. J., and Rajakaruna, R. S., 2013. Gastrointestinal parasites of
dogs in Hantana area in the Kandy District. J. National Sci. Found. Sri Lanka,
41(2), 81–91.
Prociv, Paul, and John Croese, 1996. Human enteric infection with Ancylostoma
caninum: hookworms reappraised in the light of a “new” zoonosis. Acta
Tropica. 62:23-44.
Prociv P, 1998. Zoonotic hookworm infections (Ancylostomosis) in Zoonoses.1st
edition. Edited by Palmer SR, Soulsby EJL, Simpson DIH.: Oxford Medical
Publications.
Punguyire DT, Osei-Tutu A, Aleser EV, Letsa T. (2017) Level and pattern of human
rabies and dog bites in Techiman Municipality in the Middle Belt of Ghana: a
six-year retrospective records review. Pan African Medical Journal. 28(1).
Pullola, T., Vierimaa, J., Saari, S. and Sukura, A., 2006. Canine intestinal helminths in
Finland: Prevalence, risk factors and endoparasite control practices. Vet.
Parasitol., 140, 321-326.
Robertson, I.D., Irwin P.J., Lymbery, A.J., Thompson R.C.A., 2000. The role of
companion animals in the emergence of parasitic disease. Int. J. Parasitol.,
30(12-13), 1369–1377.
Soulsby, E. J. L. Textbook of Veterinary Clinical Parasitology. 1969. F. A. Davis
Company. Philadelphia, PA. Pp. 32-133.
Savilla, Tashina Marie, "Prevalence of intestinal parasite infection in symptomatic and
asymptomatic dogs in southwestern West Virginia: the potential impact on
human health" (2019). Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 842
45
Sowemimo, Oluyomi A. 2019 The prevalence and intensity of gastrointestinal parasites
of dogs in Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Journal of Helminthology. 83:27-31.
Sowemimo, O. A., & Ayanniya, O. A. (2017). Gastrointestinal helminth parasites of
domestic dogs in Ilesa, Osun State, Nigeria: A faecal examination survey study.
Bacteriol Parasitol, 8(3).
Tamerat, N., Abera, D., Teha, R., Terefe, Y., & Lemma, F. (2015). Cat and dog
gastrointestinal helminth and assessment of community perception on
helminthic zoonosis in Haramaya town, Eastern Ethiopia. America-Eurasian
Journal of Scientific Research, 10(5), 299-306.
Tylkowska, A., Pilarczyk, B., Gregorczyk, A., & Templin, E. (2010). Gastrointestinal
helminths
of
dogs
in
Western
Pomerania,
Poland.
Wiadomości
Parazytologiczne, 56(3), 269-276.
WHO, (2019) Spread of canine rabies sparks broad community response in Ghanaian
town Spread of canine rabies sparks broad community response in Ghanaian.
Ugbomoiko, L. Ariza, and J. Heukelbach, (2009). “Parasites of importance for human
health in Nigerian dogs: high prevalence and limited knowledge of pet owners”
BMC Veterinary Research, vol. 4, article 49.
Wyckliff, N., Kitaa, J., Thaiyah, A., Maingi, N., Muriuki, J., & Chepkirui, E. (2017).
Coprological study to determine the prevalence of intestinal helminthes in dogs
of Nairobi, Kenya- A potential zoonotic threat. Int J Vet Sci Res, 3(1), 002-029.
doi:http:// dx.doi.org/10.17352/ijvsr.000019.
Zelahem, G., & Mekonnen, A. (2012). Prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths among
dogs in Bahir Dar Town, Ethiopia. World Appl. Sci. J, 19(5), 595-601.
46
Ziblim S., Sufyan B. and Adam J. (2021). Attitude and knowledge about zoonotic
disease among livestock farmers in rural Tamale, Ghana. International journal
of medical reseavch and health sciences.vol 4.,10(2): 98-106.
APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRES FOR DOG OWNERS IN TECHIMAN
47
INTRODUCTION
We are carrying out this research as part of academic work. Could you please spare
me a few minutes of your time and respond to the items below as honestly as possible,
Information provided will be treated as private and confidential.
DOG INDEX:
A. CHARACTERISTIC OF DOG OWNERS.
1. Location……………………
2. House number……………………
3. Occupation…………………….
4. Age ( )
5. Sex F (
)M(
)
6. Highest educational level
a. No education (
)
b. Non-formal education (
)
c. DEMOGRAPHIC Primary Education ( )
d. Junior High Education ( )
e. Senior High Education
f. Tertiary Education ( )
7. Ethnicity (Tribe)
a. Akan ( )
b. Ewe ( )
c. Dagomba ( )
d. Others (specify)……………………………….
B. MANAGEMENT PRACTICE AMONG DOG OWNERS
48
1. Sex of dog
M( )
F( )
2. Age: (In month’s)
a. 0-5 (
)
b. B. 6-12 (
)
c. >12 ( )
3. Type of breeds
a. Local ( )
b. Crossbreeds ( )
c. Exotic ( )
4. Place where the dog was acquired (where it was bought)
a. Street vendors ( )
b. Friends ( )
c. Commercial ( )
5. Was there any treatment before introducing the dog in the house?
a. Yes
b. No
6. Total number of dogs in the house…………………
7. Total number of children under five years in the house………..
8. What is the purpose of keeping dogs
a. Security
b. Companion
c. Breeding
d. Hunting
9. Do children play with dog? (Yes)
10. Housing style of dog
49
(No)
a. Free range ( ) b. Strictly confined ( ) c. Free within walled house
*How often do you clean the house………I. Daily ( )
ii. Weekly ( )
iii. Monthly
11. Where do dogs usually roam?
a. Confined to dog house on compound ( )
b. Inside the house ( )
c. Within the compound ( )
12. How do dogs leave house premises?
a. Always accompanied ( )
b. Occasionally accompanied ( )
c. Never accompanied ( )
13. Do you rear other animal apart from dogs?
a. Yes ( )
if yes state
b. No ( )
14. Type of feed given to the dog
a. Dog feed ( )
b. Raw meat product ( )
c. Household leftover ( )
15. In what medium do you feed your dogs
a. In plate ( )
b. On the floor ( )
16. Vaccination against rabies a. None ( ) b. Every year ( )
17. How often do you deworm your dog? a. None ( ) b. Every 40 days ( )
c. Yearly ( )
18. Type of drug use for deworming ………………………………….
50
19. Previous treatment (If any) …………………….
20. Do you go for regular checkup of the dog? (Yes/No)
21. Usual place of defecation
a. within the house premises ( )
b. within/out house premises ( )
22. Preferred type of floor where dos defecate
a. Only impervious (cemented/ tiles) ( )
b. Only pervious (grass, soil etc) ( )
c. Both pervious/inpervious ( )
23. How do you dispose your dog feces?
a. Use as manure
b. Dump in the refuse
c. Others. Pleases state………………………….
24. Are you are of transmission of parasite from dog to human (Yes/No)
51