樱花视频

Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research
  • Published:

Investigation of awareness, sanitation, and customer education practices among employees of pet and animal feed stores that sell live animals in the United States

樱花视频 volume听24, Article听number:听3382 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Numerous zoonotic disease outbreaks have been associated with companion animals and poultry purchased at pet and animal feed stores. Employees are often the initial source of information for customers purchasing a new pet. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to: (1) investigate awareness, sanitation, and customer education practices related to zoonotic disease risk, and (2) identify predictors of providing customer education among employees of pet and animal feed stores that sell live animals.

Methods

A survey of pet and animal feed store employees was conducted to evaluate sanitation practices, training, and awareness of zoonotic disease risk. Differences in proportions of categorical variables were assessed using Chi-square tests. Wilcoxon rank-sum and Kruskal鈥揥allis tests were used to assess for differences in the values of ordinal variables based on the values of categorical variables. A partial proportional odds model was used to identify predictors of providing customer education.

Results

Surveys were completed by 206 respondents from the Southeast, Midwest, Southwest, and Western US, 146 of whom reported that their workplace sold live animals. Handwashing was more frequent among employees whose workplace had handwashing policies related to handling animals and their habitats (p鈥�&濒迟;鈥�0.001). Perceived zoonotic disease risk was higher among those who had received workplace training (p鈥�=鈥�0.007). Higher odds of providing customer education related to zoonotic disease risk were associated with serving in a supervisory role (p鈥�=鈥�0.005), higher perceived zoonotic disease risk (p鈥�=鈥�0.001), and more frequent sanitation practices (handwashing, p鈥�=鈥�0.031; surface disinfection, p鈥�<鈥�0.001; and glove use, p鈥�&濒迟;鈥�0.001).

Conclusions

Pet and animal feed stores play an important role in minimizing occupational health hazards for employees and providing education for customers. These retailers should implement clear biosecurity protocols and provide training about zoonotic disease risk associated with handling live animals.

Peer Review reports

Background

Animal ownership can have positive impacts on human health and well-being [1, 2]. More than half of households in the United States have one or more pets [3], and many consider their pets to be a part of the family. However, contact with pets and backyard poultry is associated with an increased risk of exposure to zoonotic pathogens [4,5,6,7,8,9]. Risk of illness and hospitalization resulting from transmission of zoonotic pathogens is higher among certain groups, including young children (<鈥�5 years old), adults aged 65 and older, people who are pregnant, and those with immune compromise. Transmission can occur through direct contact, including bites and scratches, as well as indirect contact via cross-contamination of objects and surfaces [4, 6, 7, 9].

Bite and scratch wounds from dogs and cats may result in infections such as pasteurellosis and bartonellosis (cat scratch disease) [7, 10, 11]. Animal contact is also an important route of transmission for enteric pathogens; in the US, an estimated 17% of human illnesses due to Campylobacter infections and 11% of those due to non-typhoidal Salmonella are attributable to animal contact [12]. Numerous species can harbor Salmonella in their gastrointestinal tract and shed the organism asymptomatically; however, contact with poultry or non-traditional pets (companion animals other than dogs and cats) such as reptiles and amphibians has repeatedly been associated with zoonotic Salmonella transmission [4, 7]. Contact with non-traditional pets can also result in exposure to various other zoonotic pathogens [4]. For example, contact with pet birds infected with Chlamydia psittaci is an important cause of psittacosis [13]. Contact with small mammals has been associated with human illness due to Streptobacillus moniliformis (the causative agent of rat bite fever) [14,15,16,17], hantaviruses [18,19,20], lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus [21,22,23,24], and Mpox [25].

The sale and adoption of animals at retail pet stores and agricultural feed stores may result in the transmission of zoonotic pathogens to employees and customers, and may also facilitate disease spread through the distribution of animals [6]. Shedding of pathogens such as Salmonella may be increased due to stress from transport and the combined transportation and housing of animals from different sources [4, 26, 27]. In the US, numerous outbreaks of human illness have been associated with contact with animals purchased at pet and/or feed stores. For instance, a multistate outbreak of extensively drug-resistant Campylobacter jejuni infections was attributed to contact with pet store puppies [28]. Contact with young poultry purchased at agricultural feed stores has been implicated in outbreaks of salmonellosis resulting in illness and hospitalization [5, 26, 29,30,31]. In 2020, record numbers of backyard poultry-associated Salmonella outbreaks were detected in the US, with many illnesses occurring among new poultry owners [32]. There have also been numerous multistate outbreaks of human Salmonella infection attributable to contact with reptiles or amphibians, primarily affecting infants and young children [33,34,35,36,37,38].

Previous and ongoing zoonotic disease outbreaks associated with animals purchased at pet and agricultural feed stores highlight the importance of appropriate husbandry and sanitation practices, both within these settings and after purchase [4, 6, 27]. Transmission of zoonotic pathogens often occurs through direct or indirect animal contact at home [4], and findings of previous research suggest that public awareness of zoonotic disease risk is relatively low [30, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40]. Employees of pet and animal feed stores where companion animals and live poultry are sold often serve as the initial source of information for customers purchasing a new pet [4, 6]. However, there is limited published information on awareness of zoonotic disease risk and customer education practices among employees of pet and animal feed stores that sell live animals in the United States. Given the important role of these retailers with respect to customer education about zoonotic disease risk, understanding awareness and current workplace practices is crucial [27]. Identifying factors associated with providing customer education can guide the development of evidence-based outreach strategies to promote this practice and prevent zoonotic disease transmission associated with pets and backyard poultry. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to: (1) investigate awareness, sanitation, and customer education practices related to zoonotic disease risk, and (2) identify predictors of providing customer education among employees of pet and animal feed stores that sell or offer onsite adoption of live animals.

Materials and methods

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was reviewed and approved as exempt by the University of Tennessee Institutional Review Board Human Research Protections Program under 45 CFR 46.101 (Number: UTK IRB-23-07792-XM). Participation in the survey was voluntary, and all results are presented in aggregated form with no identifying information to ensure that participants cannot be re-identified. Since the study was classified as secondary research and investigators had no additional contact with and did not attempt to re-identify study subjects, additional informed consent was not required by the Institutional Review Board.

Survey development and dissemination

A survey of pet and animal feed store employees was developed and conducted by the University of Tennessee Center for Agriculture and Food Security and Preparedness (CAFSP), part of the Tennessee Integrated Food Safety Center of Excellence. The survey, which was designed to evaluate sanitation practices, training, and awareness of zoonotic disease risk related to animal husbandry and food handling to assess the need for development of educational materials, was created and implemented using QuestionPro Research Edition software. The survey was developed with input from subject matter experts and reviewed by public health experts from the Tennessee Department of Health (TDH) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Survey parameters were identified based upon input from these agencies. The survey was revised numerous times as part of this review process prior to distribution.

Surveys were distributed to pet and animal feed stores across the US via email. Flyers containing a quick-response (QR) code were also distributed to store managers for display. Employees could access the survey by scanning the QR code with a smartphone. A voluntary gift card drawing was added as an incentive for completing the survey and managers were contacted by phone to solicit participation. In total, 176 respondents started the original survey, but only 16 (9.1%) of these were completed. Feedback from managers and employees indicated that the low completion rate was due to the length of the survey, which was subsequently revised and re-distributed. This revised survey consisted of 33 questions in multiple-choice (single and multiple response), 5-point Likert-type scale (always to never), and 7-point Likert-type scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree) formats. In total, survey development, review and revision resulted in the construction of at least five drafts. The revised survey was used to collect the data reported in the current study. The survey has not been previously published and is included as Additional File 1.

Store managers were contacted by phone and via email to seek participation in the revised survey. With store manager permission, paper survey packets were hand-delivered or mailed to pet and animal feed stores. Surveys were distributed to stores in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. Existing CAFSP contractors assisted with identification of pet and animal feed stores and dissemination of survey packets in their area. Student workers at other Centers of Excellence also assisted with survey distribution.

Store employees received three options for accessing the survey: 1) scanning a QR code, 2) typing an address into their web browser, or 3) completing a paper copy. For those who elected to use a paper copy, postage-paid envelopes were provided for returning completed surveys. Movie theater candy was provided as an incentive for completing the survey in addition to the gift card drawing. Surveys were completed between July 2021 and October 2021.

Data management and descriptive statistics

Data management, visualization, and statistical analysis were performed using R version 4.4.0 [41]. Survey respondents who answered 鈥淵es鈥� to the question 鈥淒oes your current workplace(s) sell live animals or offer onsite adoption of live animals?鈥� were included in the current study. Ordinal variables were coded such that higher values indicated either more frequently performing a task (1鈥�=鈥塏ever, 2鈥�=鈥塕arely, 3鈥�=鈥塖ometimes, 4鈥�=鈥塐ften, 5鈥�=鈥堿lways) or stronger agreement with a statement (1鈥�=鈥塖trongly disagree, 7鈥�=鈥塖trongly agree).

Chi-square tests were used to assess for significant differences in proportions of categorical variables. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to assess for significant differences in the values of ordinal variables based on the values of dichotomous variables, and Kruskal鈥揥allis tests were used to assess for significant differences in the values of ordinal variables based on the values of non-ordered categorical variables with three or more categories. A p-value鈥�<鈥�0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Investigation of predictors of customer education practices

Cumulative logit models were used to identify characteristics associated with how often respondents provided customer education related to zoonotic disease risk [42, 43]. These models relate the probability of a participant鈥檚 response being at or below a given category to the probability of being in a higher category. The outcome was an ordinal variable with response categories ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Models were fit using the clm function from the 鈥榦rdinal鈥� package in R [44].

To prevent problems with multicollinearity, correlations between all possible pairs of potential predictors were assessed using Spearman rank-order correlation tests. If a pair of variables was highly correlated (|rs|>鈥�0.7), one was selected for consideration in the model-building process. Univariable logistic regression models were used to assess associations between pairs of dichotomous predictor variables. Only one of a pair of variables with an odds ratio (OR)鈥�>鈥�8.0 was considered for inclusion in the model-building process.

Model-building was performed in two steps. First, univariable associations between each potential predictor variable and the outcome were assessed using constrained cumulative logit models (proportional odds models) to identify candidate variables for inclusion in the multivariable model. Statistical significance was assessed using likelihood ratio tests. Variables associated with the outcome at a liberal p-value of鈥�<鈥�0.20 were considered for inclusion in the multivariable model. In addition, workplace type and working at a store that sold live poultry were considered in the multivariable modeling process despite having p-values鈥�>鈥�0.2 for the univariable association. These variables were considered due to hypothesized associations with the outcome and to permit investigation of these variables as potential confounders. In the second step, a multivariable proportional odds model was built using manual backwards elimination, specifying a critical p-value of 0.05 for inclusion in the final model. If the removal of a variable changed the magnitude of the coefficient of another variable by鈥�>鈥�20%, that variable would be considered a potential confounder and retained in the final model regardless of statistical significance. Variance inflation factors (VIFs) were computed to assess for multicollinearity, with VIFs鈥�>鈥�10 indicating serious problems with multicollinearity.

The proportional odds assumption was assessed for each variable in the model using the Brant test [45]. When the proportional odds assumption was not met for all variables in the model, a partial proportional odds model was fit. This model allows the coefficients for predictors that did not meet the proportional odds assumption to vary across levels of the outcome. An approximate likelihood ratio test was used to assess whether the partial proportional odds model had better fit to the data than the proportional odds model.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Among the 221 respondents who started surveys, 206 were completed. A total of 146 (70.9%) respondents indicated that their current workplace sold and/or offered onsite adoption of live animals and were included in subsequent analyses. Approximately half (51.8%) of these respondents reported working at a regional or national chain, while 29.1% worked at a local chain and 19.1% worked at an independent store (Table听1). The most common types of animals sold or offered for adoption included chickens and other poultry (61.6%), small mammals (guinea pigs, hamsters, rodents, and rabbits, 56.8%), and reptiles and amphibians (30.1%).

Table 1 Workplace characteristics and activities reported by employees of U.S. pet and animal feed stores that sell live animals
Full size table

The most common workplace activities among respondents included stocking (80.1%), cashier (78.8%), and sales (77.4%). A total of 58.9% of respondents performed animal care or grooming, and 47.9% cleaned animal housing (e.g. pens, cages, food bowls, and water bowls). Just under two-thirds (65.8%) reported that their workplace had provided training on the risk of zoonotic disease associated with handling live animals. A total of 59.6% reported that their workplace had specific handwashing policies related to handling live animals, and 46.6% had specific handwashing policies related to handling animal habitats. While 42.5% of respondents reported that their workplace provided handouts or other take-home information to customers on the risk of zoonotic disease associated with handling live animals, fewer (28.1%) had posters or other signage displayed.

The majority of respondents (73.6%) reported that they always washed their hands after handling live animals or their habitats, while 20.7% washed their hands often and 5.7% sometimes washed their hands (Fig.听1). The use of gloves when handling animals or their habitats was less frequent; just 12.6% of respondents always wore gloves, while approximately half (52.6%) either rarely or never wore gloves. Most respondents either always (48.9%) or often (35.8%) used a disinfectant after cleaning surfaces in contact with live animals. A total of 37.2% of respondents reported that they always provided information to customers on zoonotic disease risk associated with handling live animals, and 27.0% often provided this information. However, 5.8% and 10.2% of respondents rarely or never provided this information to customers, respectively. The majority (60.4%) strongly agreed that people can become ill from touching or handling live animals, including pets or poultry.

Fig.听1
figure 1

Frequency of sanitation and customer education practices among employees of U.S. pet and animal feed stores that sell live animals

Full size image

No significant differences in the frequency of sanitation practices (handwashing: 蠂2鈥�=鈥�0.94, p鈥�=鈥�0.6238; surface disinfection: 蠂2鈥�=鈥�2.28, p鈥�=鈥�0.3197; glove use: 蠂2鈥�=鈥�1.15, p鈥�=鈥�0.5621) or customer education (蠂2鈥�=鈥�2.78, p鈥�=鈥�0.2478) were identified based on workplace type. A total of 72.6% of those who worked at national or regional chains had received zoonotic disease training, compared to 61.0% of employees of local chains and 66.7% of employees of independent stores, but this difference was not significantly different (\({\chi }^{2}\) = 1.66, p鈥�=鈥�0.4351). Handwashing after handling animals and their habitats was significantly more frequent among employees whose workplace had specific handwashing policies related to handling live animals (W鈥�=鈥�1607.5, p鈥�<鈥�0.0001) and animal habitats (W鈥�=鈥�1734, p鈥�=鈥�0.0001).

There was no significant difference in perceived zoonotic disease risk (蠂2鈥�=鈥�0.1451, p鈥�=鈥�0.9300) based on workplace type. However, perceived zoonotic disease risk was significantly (W鈥�=鈥�1741, p鈥�=鈥�0.0068) higher among respondents that had received workplace training on the risk of zoonotic disease associated with handling live animals compared to those who had not. There was no significant difference in the frequency of handwashing after handling animals and their habitats based on whether a respondent had received zoonotic disease training at their workplace (W鈥�=鈥�1796, p鈥�=鈥�0.0659). However, the frequency of surface disinfection (W鈥�=鈥�1403.5, p鈥�=鈥�0.0037) and glove use (W鈥�=鈥�1272.5, p鈥�=鈥�0.0006) were significantly higher among those who had received such training. Respondents that received workplace training on zoonotic disease risk also provided information on zoonotic disease risk to customers significantly more frequently (W鈥�=鈥�1077.5, p鈥�<鈥�0.0001) than those who did not.

Investigation of predictors of customer education practices

Univariable associations between workplace and employee characteristics and the frequency of providing customer education on zoonotic disease risk are displayed in Table听2. Sanitation practices (p鈥�<鈥�0.0001), perceived zoonotic disease risk (p鈥�=鈥�0.0017), workplace zoonotic disease training (p鈥�<鈥�0.0001), and handwashing policies related to handling live animals (p鈥�=鈥�0.0051) and their habitats (p鈥�=鈥�0.0157) had significant univariable associations with the outcome. Of note, working at a store that sold reptiles was associated with higher odds of performing animal care or grooming activities (Odds Ratio [OR]鈥�=鈥�12.2, p鈥�&濒迟;鈥�0.0001). In addition, respondents whose workplace had specific handwashing policies related to handling live animals also had significantly higher odds of having specific handwashing policies related to handling animal habitats (OR鈥�=鈥�38.3, p鈥�&濒迟;鈥�0.0001).

Table 2 Univariable associations between workplace or employee characteristics and customer education practices among employees of U.S. pet and animal feed stores that sell live animals
Full size table

Four of the five variables in the final multivariable model met the proportional odds assumption: supervising one or more other employees, perceived zoonotic disease risk associated with handling live animals, handwashing after handling animals or their habitats, and disinfecting after cleaning surfaces in contact with animals (Table听3). The Brant test indicated a violation of the proportional odds assumption for the frequency of glove use when handling live animals or their habitats (p鈥�&濒迟;鈥�0.0001). Therefore, a partial proportional odds model was fit to the data. Workplace zoonotic disease training was a significant predictor in the proportional odds model (p鈥�=鈥�0.0466). However, after fitting the partial proportional odds model to the data to account for the non-proportional odds of the glove use variable, the association between zoonotic disease training and frequency of providing customer education was no longer statistically significant (p鈥�=鈥�0.0730). In addition, the value of Akaike鈥檚 information criterion (AIC) for the full model (AIC鈥�=鈥�328.12) was not substantially improved compared to the reduced model (AIC鈥�=鈥�329.34). Therefore, the zoonotic disease training variable was removed and the more parsimonious model selected as the final model. Examination of the percent change in coefficients after variable elimination during the model-building process did not reveal evidence of confounding.

Table 3 Multivariable partial proportional odds model predicting customer education practices among employees of U.S. pet and animal feed stores that sell live animals
Full size table

Respondents who supervised one or more other employees at their workplace had significantly higher odds of providing customers with zoonotic disease information compared to those who did not have a supervisory role. For respondents with a supervisory role, the odds of providing customer education more frequently were 2.8 times that of those without a supervisory role (p鈥�=鈥�0.0050). In addition, those with higher perceived zoonotic disease risk also provided information to customers more frequently. A unit increase in perceived zoonotic disease risk was associated with 1.51 times higher odds of more frequent customer education (p鈥�=鈥�0.0013). More frequent adherence to sanitation practices was also associated with the frequency of customer education. Higher frequency of handwashing after handling live animals (OR鈥�=鈥�1.91, p鈥�=鈥�0.0308) and surface disinfection (OR鈥�=鈥�2.46, p鈥�<鈥�0.0001) were associated with higher odds of providing customers with zoonotic disease information. Respondents who used gloves more frequently also tended to have higher odds of providing information on zoonotic disease risk to customers, but these odds differed based on the response level of the outcome (Table听3). For instance, a unit increase in the frequency of glove use was associated with 4.71 times higher odds of providing customer education sometimes, often, or always (compared to rarely or never providing this information). However, a unit increase in the frequency of glove use was associated with 2.15 times higher odds of providing customer education often or always (compared to sometimes, rarely, or never).

Discussion

Contact with household pets and backyard poultry is a potential route of transmission for zoonotic pathogens that cause preventable illness in humans. Employees of pet and animal feed stores, who are at risk of occupational exposure to zoonotic pathogens, often serve as the initial source of husbandry and hygiene information for customers purchasing a new pet [4, 6]. Therefore, this study investigated awareness, sanitation, and customer education practices related to zoonotic disease risk among employees of pet and animal feed stores in the US that sell or offer onsite adoption of live animals.

Handwashing and surface disinfection were common practices among employees of pet and animal feed stores, with 73.6% reporting that they always washed their hands after handling animals or their environments, and 48.9% reporting that they always used disinfectant after cleaning surfaces in contact with live animals. However, glove use was much less frequent, and over half (52.6%) of respondents either rarely or never wore gloves while handling live animals or their habitats. The reason for this finding was unclear, although frequency of glove use could be impacted by factors such as employee preferences and availability of personal protective equipment. A previous survey of agricultural feed stores in Pennsylvania, conducted as part of an outbreak investigation of human Salmonella infection associated with contact with live poultry, reported that just 20% offered personal protective equipment to employees who handled live birds or cleaned their environments [30]. Findings of prior research suggest that the use of personal protective equipment when handling live animals or cleaning their habitats is also uncommon among members of the public [40]. Wearing gloves can reduce exposure to zoonotic pathogens when combined with effective handwashing after their removal. The use of thicker work gloves may also be appropriate in certain situations to prevent injuries due to bites and scratches, which can result in transmission of pathogens such as Streptobacillus moniliformis [14].

Written biosecurity protocols, including handwashing policies, are recommended for employees of pet and agricultural retail stores to prevent the transmission of zoonotic pathogens from live poultry and pets to people [4, 27]. The aforementioned Pennsylvania survey reported that only 20% of feed stores had a written handwashing policy for employees [30]. In the current study, however, 59.6% of respondents reported that their workplace had handwashing policies related to handling live animals, and 46.6% had handwashing policies related to handling animal habitats. Handwashing after handling animals and their environments in the workplace was significantly more frequent among those who reported that these policies were in place. This finding provides evidence in support of implementing handwashing policies as a strategy to promote adherence to recommended hygiene practices. Findings of this study also support recommendations for the provision of workplace training on zoonotic disease risk to improve employees鈥� awareness and sanitation practices [4, 27]. Perceived disease risk and the frequency of surface disinfection, glove use, and customer education were all significantly higher among respondents who had received zoonotic disease training compared to those who had not.

The majority of respondents agreed (11.8%) or strongly agreed (60.4%) with the statement that people can become ill from touching or handling live animals, including pets or poultry, suggesting that most retail employees are aware of zoonotic disease risk at their workplace. This is consistent with findings of previous research that investigated awareness of Salmonella risk associated with live poultry among representatives of agricultural feed stores in Pennsylvania (74%) and New Mexico (85%) [26, 30]. However, findings of those studies indicated a much lower percentage of store representatives (28% of those from Pennsylvania and 57% from New Mexico) provided this information to customers [26, 30]. This is also in line with findings of the current study, which suggest that customer education on zoonotic disease prevention does not occur consistently at pet and animal feed stores in the US. Numerous expert groups have recommended the display and delivery of educational materials related to zoonotic disease risk in multiple formats and languages by live animal retailers [4,5,6, 9, 27]. However, fewer than half (42.5%) of respondents in this study reported that their workplace provided take-home information to customers on the risk of zoonotic disease associated with handling live animals, and just 28.1% had posters or other signage displayed.

Although most respondents strongly agreed that contact with live animals was associated with zoonotic disease risk, a far lower percentage (37.2%) reported that they always provided zoonotic disease awareness education to customers. Furthermore, some employees (16%) reported that they rarely or never provided this information, suggesting that there is room for improvement with respect to customer education in pet and animal feed stores. Indeed, findings of previous research suggest that public awareness of zoonotic disease risk associated with household pets, including reptiles, amphibians, and backyard poultry, is relatively low [30, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40].

Given the important role of pet and animal feed retailers with respect to public education about zoonotic disease risk, this study sought to identify predictors of how frequently survey respondents provided customers with this information. Those who served in a supervisory role at their workplace had significantly higher odds of providing customer education on zoonotic disease risk. These employees may be more experienced and knowledgeable, and may also be more comfortable interacting and communicating with customers. In addition, employees with higher perceived zoonotic disease risk and those who adhered to recommended sanitation practices more frequently had higher odds of providing customer education. Workplace zoonotic disease training was not a significant predictor of customer education practices in the final model. This finding may be attributable to associations between zoonotic disease training and other variables in the model (perceived zoonotic disease risk and sanitation practices). Interestingly, while contact with certain animals (e.g. reptiles, amphibians, poultry) is associated with relatively greater risk of transmission of zoonotic pathogens than others [4, 7], type of animal(s) sold was not associated with customer education practices. Similarly, type of animal(s) sold was not significantly associated with frequency of adherence to sanitation practices or perceived zoonotic disease risk.

Effective employee and customer education about zoonotic disease risk and appropriate pet selection, husbandry, and hygiene practices have the potential to decrease transmission of zoonotic pathogens and prevent illness due to contact with live animals and their habitats [4,5,6, 26, 27, 29,30,31, 34, 35, 37]. Findings of this study support the inclusion of specific handwashing policies in written biosecurity protocols for employees to promote adherence to recommended hygiene practices. Further research is warranted to assess whether the limited glove use among pet and animal feed store employees observed in this study is attributable to availability of personal protective equipment or other factors. Findings of this study also suggest that the display of educational signage and provision of take-home materials related to zoonotic disease risk does not occur consistently in pet and animal feed stores in the US. This study also found that employees with more experience, awareness and more frequent adherence to recommended sanitation practices in the workplace had higher odds of providing customer education on zoonotic disease risk. Therefore, increasing knowledge and awareness of employees who work in these settings may translate to improved customer education, which has the potential to improve safe hygiene and handling practices beyond the store setting. Implementing regular employee zoonotic disease training, which was associated with higher perceived zoonotic disease risk and more frequent sanitation practices, represents an important strategy to improve awareness and workplace safety.

Strengths and limitations

This study provides useful information on awareness, sanitation and customer education practices among employees of live animal retailers in the United States. Respondents from a wide geographic range participated in the survey, representing every region except for the Northeastern US. However, there are a few limitations worth noting. Participation was voluntary, and results may not be generalizable to all employees of pet and animal feed stores that sell live animals in the US if characteristics of survey respondents differed from those who did not respond to the survey. In addition, recall and social desirability biases may have affected participants鈥� responses to the survey [46]. Despite the above limitations, findings of this study are useful to guide outreach strategies aimed at improving awareness and reducing exposure to zoonotic pathogens associated with animal contact in pet and animal feed stores.

Conclusions

Commercial live animal retailers play an important role in minimizing occupational health hazards for employees and providing educational resources for customers. Findings of this study highlight gaps in workplace training, policies, and customer education practices among employees of pet and animal feed stores that sell or offer adoption of live animals in the US. Study findings indicate that employees with higher perceived disease risk and who adhere to recommended sanitation practices more frequently are more likely to provide customer education. Pet and animal feed stores should implement clear and specific biosecurity protocols and provide employee training about zoonotic disease risk associated with handling the animal species sold at their workplace.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CAFSP:

Center for Agriculture and Food Security and Preparedness

CDC:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CI:

Confidence Interval

OR:

Odds Ratio

QR:

Quick-Response

TDH:

Tennessee Department of Health

US:

United States

References

  1. Wells DL. The state of research on human-animal relations: implications for human health. Anthrozoos. 2019;32(2):169鈥�81.

    听 听

  2. Macauley L, Chur-Hansen A. Human health benefits of non-conventional companion animals: a narrative review. Anim an open access J from MDPI. 2022;13(1):28.

    听

  3. American Pet Products Association. Pet industry market size, trends & pet industry statistics. 2024. Available from:听. Cited 2024 Aug 29

  4. Varela K, Brown JA, Lipton B, Dunn J, Stanek D, Behravesh CB, et al. A review of zoonotic disease threats to pet owners: a compendium of measures to prevent zoonotic diseases associated with non-traditional pets such as rodents and other small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, backyard poultry, and other selected animals. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2022;22(6):303鈥�60.

    听 听 听 听

  5. Behravesh CB, Brinson D, Hopkins BA, Gomez TM. Backyard poultry flocks and salmonellosis: a recurring, yet preventable public health challenge. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(10):1432鈥�8.

    听 听 听

  6. Halsby KD, Walsh AL, Campbell C, Hewitt K, Morgan D. Healthy animals, healthy people: zoonosis risk from animal contact in pet shops, a systematic review of the literature. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(2):e89309.

    听 听 听 听

  7. Damborg P, Broens EM, Chomel BB, Guenther S, Pasmans F, Wagenaar JA, et al. Bacterial zoonoses transmitted by household pets: state-of-the-art and future perspectives for targeted research and policy actions. J Comp Pathol. 2016;155(1):S27-40.

    听 CAS听 听 听

  8. Stull JW, Brophy J, Weese JS. Reducing the risk of pet-associated zoonotic infections. CMAJ. 2015;187(10):736鈥�43.

    听 听 听 听

  9. Daly RF, House J, Stanek D, Stobierski MG, Robyn M, Behravesh CB, et al. Compendium of measures to prevent disease associated with animals in public settings, 2017. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2017;251(11):1268鈥�92.

    听 听 听

  10. Piorunek M, Brajer-Luftmann B, Walkowiak J. Pasteurella multocida infection in humans. Pathog. 2023;12(10):1210.

    听 CAS听 听

  11. Chomel BB, Kasten RW. Bartonellosis, an increasingly recognized zoonosis. J Appl Microbiol. 2010;109(3):743鈥�50.

    听 CAS听 听 听

  12. Hale CR, Scallan E, Cronquist AB, Dunn J, Smith K, Robinson T, et al. Estimates of enteric illness attributable to contact with animals and their environments in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54(5):S472-9.

    听 听 听

  13. Balsamo G, Maxted AM, Midla JW, Murphy JM, Wohrle R, Edling TM, et al. Compendium of measures to control chlamydia psittaci infection among humans (Psittacosis) and pet birds (Avian Chlamydiosis), 2017. J Avian Med Surg. 2017;31(3):262鈥�82.

    听 听 听

  14. Shvartsblat S, Kochie M, Harber P, Howard J. Fatal rat bite fever in a pet shop employee. Am J Ind Med. 2004;45(4):357鈥�60.

    听 听 听

  15. Downing ND, Dewnany GD, Radford PJ. A rare and serious consequence of a rat bite. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2001;83(4):279.

    CAS听 听 听 听

  16. Cunningham BB, Paller AS, Katz BZ. Rat bite fever in a pet lover. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1998;38(2):330鈥�2.

    听 CAS听 听 听

  17. Edholm A, Heyer M, Nemetski SM. Rat-bite fever: a rare diagnosis for a common pediatric presentation: case report. Clin Pract Cases Emerg Med. 2021;5(4):407.

    听 听 听 听

  18. Taori SK, Jameson LJ, Campbell A, Drew PJ, McCarthy ND, Hart J, et al. UK hantavirus, renal failure, and pet rats. Lancet. 2013;381(9871):1070.

    听 听 听

  19. Lundkvist 脜, Verner-Carlsson J, Plyusnina A, Forslund L, Feinstein R, Plyusnin A. Pet rat harbouring Seoul hantavirus in Sweden, June 2013. Eurosurveillance. 2013;18(27):20521.

    听 听 听

  20. Knust B, Brown S, de St. Maurice A, Whitmer S, Koske SE, Ervin E, et al. Seoul virus infection and spread in united states home-based ratteries: rat and human testing results from a multistate outbreak investigation. J Infect Dis. 2020;222(8):1311鈥�9.

    听 CAS听 听 听

  21. Amman BR, Pavlin BI, Albari帽o CG, Comer JA, Erickson BR, Oliver JB, et al. Pet rodents and fatal lymphocytic choriomeningitis in transplant patients. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13(5):719.

    听 听 听 听

  22. Jamieson DJ, Kourtis AP, Bell M, Rasmussen SA. Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus: an emerging obstetric pathogen? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(6):1532鈥�6.

    听 听 听

  23. Ceianu C, Tatulescu D, Muntean M, Molnar GB, Emmerich P, G眉nther S, et al. Lymphocytic choriomeningitis in a pet store worker in Romania. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2008;15(11):1749.

    听 CAS听 听 听 听

  24. Deibel R, Woodall JP, Decher WJ, Schryver GD. Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus in man: serologic evidence of association with pet hamsters. JAMA. 1975;232(5):501鈥�4.

    听 CAS听 听 听

  25. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: multistate outbreak of monkeypox 鈥�- Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, 2003. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52(27):642鈥�6.

    听

  26. Gaffga NH, Behravesh CB, Ettestad PJ, Smelser CB, Rhorer AR, Cronquist AB, et al. Outbreak of salmonellosis linked to live poultry from a mail-order hatchery. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(22):2065鈥�73.

    听 CAS听 听 听

  27. Nichols M, Stevenson L, Whitlock L, Pabilonia K, Robyn M, Basler C, et al. Preventing human salmonella infections resulting from live poultry contact through interventions at retail stores. J Agric Saf Health. 2018;24(3):155鈥�66.

    听 听 听

  28. Francois Watkins LK, Laughlin ME, Joseph LA, Chen JC, Nichols M, Basler C, et al. Ongoing outbreak of extensively drug-resistant campylobacter jejuni infections associated with US pet store puppies, 2016鈥�2020. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(9):e2125203鈥揺2125203.

    听 听 听 听

  29. Anderson TC, Nguyen TA, Adams JK, Garrett NM, Bopp CA, Baker JB, et al. Multistate outbreak of human salmonella typhimurium infections linked to live poultry from agricultural feed stores and mail-order hatcheries, United States 2013. One Heal. 2016;1(2):144鈥�9.

    听 听

  30. Loharikar A, Vawter S, Warren K, Deasy M, Moll M, Sandt C, et al. Outbreak of human salmonella typhimurium infections linked to contact with baby poultry from a single agricultural feed store chain and mail-order hatchery, 2009. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2013;32(1):8鈥�12.

    听 听 听

  31. Loharikar A, Briere E, Schwensohn C, Weninger S, Wagendorf J, Scheftel J, et al. Four multistate outbreaks of human salmonella infections associated with live poultry contact, United States, 2009. Zoonoses Public Health. 2012;59(5):347鈥�54.

    听 CAS听 听 听

  32. Nichols M, Gollarza L, Palacios A, Stapleton GS, Basler C, Hoff C, et al. Salmonella illness outbreaks linked to backyard poultry purchasing during the COVID-19 pandemic: United States, 2020. Epidemiol Infect. 2021;27(149):e234.

    听 听

  33. Harris JR, Bergmire-Sweat D, Schlegel JH, Winpisinger KA, Klos RF, Perry C, et al. Multistate outbreak of salmonella infections associated with small turtle exposure, 2007鈥�2008. Pediatrics. 2009;124(5):1388鈥�94.

    听 听 听

  34. Harris JR, Neil KP, Behravesh CB, Sotir MJ, Angulo FJ. Recent multistate outbreaks of human salmonella infections acquired from turtles: a continuing public health challenge. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(4):554鈥�9.

    听 听 听

  35. Bosch S, Tauxe RV, Behravesh CB. Turtle-associated salmonellosis, United States, 2006鈥�2014. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22(7):1149.

    CAS听 听 听 听

  36. Walters MS, Simmons L, Anderson TC, De Ment J, Van Zile K, Matthias LP, et al. Outbreaks of salmonellosis from small turtles. Pediatrics. 2016;137(1):1鈥�9.

    听 听

  37. Waltenburg MA, Perez A, Salah Z, Karp BE, Whichard J, Tolar B, et al. Multistate reptile- and amphibian-associated salmonellosis outbreaks in humans, United States, 2009鈥�2018. Zoonoses Public Health. 2022;69(8):925鈥�37.

    听 听 听 听

  38. Nemechek K, Stapleton GS, Waltenburg MA, Low MSF, Gollarza L, Adams J, et al. Multistate outbreak of turtle-associated salmonellosis highlights ongoing challenges with the illegal sale and distribution of small turtles. Zoonoses Public Health. 2023;70(8):684鈥�91.

    听 听 听 听

  39. Stull JW, Peregrine AS, Sargeant JM, Weese JS. Household knowledge, attitudes and practices related to pet contact and associated zoonoses in Ontario. Canada 樱花视频. 2012;12(1):1鈥�15.

    听

  40. Nicholson CW, Campagnolo ER, Boktor SW, Butler CL. Zoonotic disease awareness survey of backyard poultry and swine owners in southcentral Pennsylvania. Zoonoses Public Health. 2020;67(3):280鈥�90.

    听 听 听 听

  41. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2024.

  42. Dohoo I, Martin W, Stryhn H. Methods in Epidemiologic Research. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada: VER, Inc.; 2012. p. 471鈥�5.

    听

  43. Christensen RHB. Cumulative Link Models for Ordinal Regression with the R Package ordinal. Available from:听. Cited 2024 Aug 8

  44. Christensen RHB. ordinal - Regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2023.12鈥�4; 2023. Available from:

  45. Ugba ER. gofcat: An R package for goodness-of-fit of categorical response models. J Open Source Softw. 2022;7(76):4382. Available from:听.听Cited 2024 Aug 14.

  46. Dohoo I, Martin W, Stryhn H. Methods in Epidemiologic Research. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada: VER, inc.; 2012. p. 645鈥�74.

    听

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge Katie Garman from the Tennessee Department of Health and Tennessee Integrated Food Safety Center of Excellence for assistance with funding acquisition and survey review.

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through the Tennessee Integrated Food Safety Center of Excellence.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA

    Jennifer Lord

  2. Center for Agriculture and Food Security and Preparedness, Department of Biomedical and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA

    Sheri Pugh听&听Sharon R. Thompson

  3. Tennessee Integrated Food Safety Center for Excellence, Knoxville and Nashville, USA

    Sheri Pugh听&听Sharon R. Thompson

Authors
  1. Jennifer Lord

    You can also search for this author in 听

  2. Sheri Pugh

    You can also search for this author in 听

  3. Sharon R. Thompson

    You can also search for this author in 听

Contributions

JL: Methodology, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing 鈥� original draft, Writing 鈥� review & editing; SP: Data curation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing 鈥� review & editing; SRT: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Writing 鈥� review & editing.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jennifer Lord or Sharon R. Thompson.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was reviewed and approved as exempt by the University of Tennessee Institutional Review Board Human Research Protections Program under 45 CFR 46.101 (Number: UTK IRB-23-07792-XM). Participation in the survey was voluntary, and all results are presented in aggregated form with no identifying information to ensure that participants cannot be re-identified. Since the study was classified as secondary research and investigators had no additional contact with and did not attempt to re-identify study subjects, additional informed consent was not required by the Institutional Review Board.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher鈥檚 Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit .

About this article

Cite this article

Lord, J., Pugh, S. & Thompson, S.R. Investigation of awareness, sanitation, and customer education practices among employees of pet and animal feed stores that sell live animals in the United States. 樱花视频 24, 3382 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-20881-3

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-20881-3

Keywords

樱花视频

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us