Volume 20, Number 8—August 2014
Human Exposure to Live Poultry and Psychological and Behavioral Responses to Influenza A(H7N9), China
To investigate human exposure to live poultry and changes in risk perception and behavior after the April 2013 influenza A(H7N9) outbreak in China, we surveyed 2,504 urban residents in 5 cities and 1,227 rural residents in 4 provinces and found that perceived risk for influenza A(H7N9) was low. The highest rate of exposure to live poultry was reported in Guangzhou, where 47% of those surveyed reported visiting a live poultry market >1 times in the previous year. Most (77%) urban respondents reported that they visited live markets less often after influenza A(H7N9) cases were first identified in China in March 2013, but only 30% supported permanent closure of the markets to control the epidemic. In rural areas, 48% of respondents reported that they raised backyard poultry. Exposure to live commercial and private poultry is common in urban and rural China and remains a potential risk factor for human infection with novel influenza viruses.
The novel influenza A(H7N9) virus was identified in early 2013; as of March 31, 2014, a total of 404 laboratory-confirmed cases of human infection had been reported. These cases included 394 in mainland China, 2 in Taiwan, 7 in Hong Kong, and 1 in Malaysia (1,2). Only 2 laboratory-confirmed cases were identified in the summer months (June–September 2013), but beginning in early October 2013, the virus reemerged and caused many new human infections (3,4).
Previously published studies have reported that most human infections appear to have occurred as a result of exposure to live poultry, particularly through visits to live poultry markets (LPMs) in urban areas (3,5–8). No published reports have detailed population exposure to live poultry and LPMs in influenza A(H7N9) virus–affected areas in China, and few data on live poultry exposure have been previously reported in areas in which the virus has not been detected (4,9,10). In addition, little information has been reported on how the population of China responded to the outbreak and the control measures that were implemented. To clarify responses to the influenza A(H7N9) outbreak in China, we investigated patterns in human exposure to live poultry in LPMs and at home, examined risk perception and behavioral responses in the population, and compared these parameters between urban and rural areas in China that were affected or unaffected by the virus.
We collected information on human exposure to poultry, risk perception and psychological responses to the outbreak, preventive behaviors, and attitudes toward control measures, including closure of LPMs. We used 2 approaches to collect these data. In urban areas, we conducted telephone surveys because access to mobile telephones is high, making the approach feasible. In rural areas, where telephone accessibility is lower, we conducted door-to-door surveys.
We selected 5 large cities for our study to represent diverse levels of socioeconomic development and geographic location: Chengdu, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Shenyang, and Wuhan (Figure 1). Before our study, no laboratory-confirmed human cases of influenza A(H7N9) had been reported in these cities except for Shanghai; 1 environmental sample had tested positive for the virus in Guangzhou (11). In each city, we aimed to interview >500 adult residents (>18 years of age) who had been living there for >1 year. The telephone surveys were conducted by using a computer-assisted interviewing system, which enabled random generation of mobile telephone numbers and systematic data collection across each city. On each call, after the study was explained and verbal consent obtained, the respondent would be recruited into the study and asked to complete the survey. If a respondent were busy, a call would be made later, when the respondent was available to finish the questionnaire. Unanswered numbers were given 4 follow-up calls, made at different hours and on different days of the week, before being classified as invalid. The online Technical Appendix [PDF - 1.18 MB - 10 pages] shows the survey used in English and Chinese.
Although we had planned to use the same telephone survey approach in rural areas, a pilot study revealed it was not feasible because the survey would occur during the busy farming season, when residents would not be readily available by telephone. Instead, in rural areas we conducted door-to-door surveys. In mainland China, some cities/counties that are administrated as rural regions actually include semiurban areas, such as towns in a county, and rural areas, such as villages in a town/county. The living conditions and lifestyle of residents in semiurban areas are similar to those of urban residents, whereas residents in rural areas live in a different environment, with low population density and a more self-sustainable life, mainly dependent on farming. We used convenience sampling to choose 4 counties from rural rather than semiurban areas. Rural sites were selected on the basis of the level of economic development (measured by gross domestic product per capita) and the overall incidence of infectious diseases in 2012. Given the tiers of administration levels in mainland China, including province, city, county, town, and village, we selected a city from each of the 4 provinces with mid-level gross domestic product per capita compared with other cities in the province and with an incidence of notifiable infectious diseases above the provincial average. Within each province, we then selected a rural county from each of the 4 cities areas. As a result, we chose Dawa County (Panjin city, Liaoning Province), Zijin County (Heyuan city, Guangdong Province), Nanzhang County (Xiangfan city, Hubei Province), and Pengxi County (Suining city, Sichuan Province) for the study (Figure 1). At time of the survey, none of these counties had laboratory-confirmed human infections with avian influenza A(H7N9) virus.
After the initial selections, all towns within a county were stratified into high, middle, and low levels of socioeconomic status on the basis of census data (12–15), and 1 town was selected at random within each strata. Then, 2 villages were selected at random within each town, a convenience sample of 50 households was recruited in each village, and 1 adult in each household (>18 years of age and resident in the village for >1 year) was interviewed. To improve cooperation, each rural interviewee received a small gift worth ≈10 Chinese renminbi (6.1 renminbi = $1 US), such as a towel or a bottle of shampoo, after the survey was completed. All selected participants in the rural areas consented to be interviewed during the survey. The time taken to complete the survey was 16 minutes on average for each participant.
The urban surveys were conducted in May and June 2013 and the rural surveys in July and August 2013. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention before the survey was conducted.
All surveys in urban and rural areas were conducted by using the same questionnaire, which was based on an instrument used during the outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 (16,17) and influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 in 2009 (18). The survey instrument was pretested for face and content validity, length, and comprehensibility. Most answers were ranked on ordinal Likert scales. We used the State Trait Anxiety Inventory to measure the general level of anxiety in the population (16–18).
We investigated exposure to live poultry in backyards and in LPMs, which are defined as markets where the public can buy live chickens, ducks, pigeons, and other birds. Because LPMs are rare in rural areas and rural residents seldom visit LPMs, we did not ask rural respondents about exposures to live poultry in LPMs, only about backyard poultry exposure. In urban areas, we asked respondents about frequency of visits to LPMs and behaviors in LPMs (i.e., frequency of purchases, practice of picking up birds before purchasing, location where purchased live poultry were slaughtered). We asked all respondents about perception of risk for influenza A(H7N9) infection and perceived severity of such an infection, preventive practices in general and specifically in response to influenza A(H7N9), and attitudes toward influenza A(H7N9) and closure of LPMs.
Statistical analyses were conducted in R version 2.13.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). We performed descriptive analyses of responses in each location and compared responses between urban areas with and without laboratory-confirmed cases of influenza A(H7N9) by using χ2 tests. For the subset of respondents who reported purchasing live poultry in LPMs during the previous year, we used a multivariate logistic regression model to estimate the associations of age, sex, educational level, and geographic location with attitudes toward closure of LPMs and changes in habits of buying live poultry after public health authorities announced the first human influenza A(H7N9) case on March 31, 2013 (19).The sample size of 500 respondents in each city and 300 respondents in each rural county was chosen to ensure precision of answers to within ±4% and ±6%, respectively, and to ensure reasonable statistical power to identify differences in responses of 5%–10% or more between locations.
In the 5 urban areas, 81,266 unique telephone numbers were dialed, and the overall response rate was 8% (number of participants [2,504] divided by number of calls with eligible respondents [29,919]) (Figure 2, panel A). The selection of 1,227 participants in 4 rural sites is illustrated in Figure 2, panel B. The surveys were conducted from May 23 through August 24. During this period, the influenza A(H7N9) epidemic had passed its peak, and few cases occurred. Guangdong Province notified its first human influenza A(H7N9) case on August 9, after the completion of the survey in Guangzhou on June 26.
Respondents in urban areas tended to have white-collar jobs or were unemployed, were younger, had more education and higher income, and were less likely to be married than those in rural areas (Table 1). However, because the surveys were conducted in different forms in urban versus rural areas and the general characteristics of participants were different, including the risk for becoming infected with influenza A(H7N9) virus and the types of potential exposure to avian influenza viruses, we did not make any further direct quantitative comparisons between urban and rural respondents. For comparisons among urban areas, respondents were generally similar, but reported incomes were higher for Shanghai and Guangzhou than for the other 3 cities (data not shown).
We assessed exposures to live poultry and visits to LPMs in the 5 cities. In total, 33% of respondents reported visiting LPMs during the preceding year, the highest proportion in Guangzhou; notable differences were found between cities (Table 2). By imputing midpoints of reported purchasing rates, we estimated that the mean number of live poultry purchased per year varied between cities: 6.8 for Shenyang, 19 for Shanghai, 20 for Wuhan, 28 for Chengdu, and 47 for Guangzhou. Age-specific patterns in exposure to live poultry were generally similar for men and women within each city, with some exceptions. In Guangzhou, women 35–54 years of age purchased poultry in LPMs much more frequently than did men of the same age, but the reverse was true for those >65 years of age (Figure 3). We found no evidence of a substantial difference in poultry exposures by sex in Shanghai (Figure 3).
We further analyzed exposures in LPMs among urban residents on the basis of responses from the 829 (33%) of 2,504 participants who visited LPMs >1 time in the preceding year. Overall, 69% of these respondents reported that they always visited the nearest LPM; median distance from home to the nearest LPM was 1 km. Most respondents reported that they “usually” or “always” picked up poultry for examination before deciding to buy, with the highest proportion in Chengdu and lowest in Shenyang; 87% of respondents always arranged for slaughter of purchased poultry in the LPM, with no notable differences between cities.
During the study period, the general anxiety level among urban respondents (measured by the State Trait Anxiety Inventory) was low to moderate, but levels varied substantially between cities; the lowest mean scores were seen in Wuhan and Shenyang (Table 3). Perceived risk for influenza A(H7N9) in the following month (absolute susceptibility) and relative to others (relative susceptibility) were generally low in all cities, but highest in Shanghai. Respondents in Shanghai and Guangzhou were more likely to respond that they would be more worried than usual if they experienced an influenza-like illness (ILI). Twelve percent of respondents reported that they had worried about becoming ill with influenza A(H7N9) during the previous week; levels varied among cities, with a greater frequency of worry in Shanghai and Guangzhou (Table 3). Respondents in Shenyang reported the highest perceived severity of influenza A(H7N9) compared with seasonal influenza and avian influenza A(H5N1); respondents in Guangzhou reported the highest perceived severity of influenza A(H7N9) compared with that of SARS (Table 3).
In rural areas, as in urban areas, the mean State Trait Anxiety Inventory was low to moderate (Table 4). A total of 48% of respondents reported that they raised >1 type of poultry at home. Overall, 47% reported raising chickens, 15% raised ducks, and 8% raised geese; these proportions varied between counties (Table 4). In rural areas, levels of perceived absolute and relative susceptibility and concern about ILI or confirmed influenza A(H7N9) infection were generally low; some differences were seen between the 4 rural areas. Respondents in Nanzhang and Zijin were more likely to respond that they would be more worried than usual if they had an ILI; 24% of respondents in Zijin reported that they had worried about becoming ill with influenza A(H7N9) in the previous week, and the average level of worry in Zijin was higher than that for other counties (Table 4). Most respondents in each area perceived influenza A(H7N9) to be more severe than seasonal influenza but less severe than influenza A(H5N1) and SARS.
Among respondents in urban areas who visited LPMs >1 time in the preceding year, 77% reported that they had stopped buying or bought lower amounts of live poultry since March 2013; this proportion was highest (91%) for Shanghai (Table 2). We examined factors affecting the likelihood of changing habits of buying live poultry and found greater changes among women, those with higher educational attainment, and those residing in Shanghai and Wuhan rather than in Chengdu. We found no statistically significant differences by age group (Table 5).
On average, across the 5 cities, 30% of respondents reported that they would support the closure of LPMs to control the epidemic; the proportion in support of closures was highest in Shanghai (39%) and lowest in Guangzhou (27%) and Chengdu (25%) (Table 2). We examined factors affecting the likelihood of supporting the closure of LPMs and found greater support among persons 55–64 years of age (odds ratio [OR] 3.28, 95% CI 1.71–6.29) and >65 years of age (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.04–5.32). We also found greater support for closure of LPMs in Shanghai (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.05–2.99) than in Chengdu but no significant differences by sex or educational attainment (Table 5). However, 32% of respondents in Shanghai reported that the closure of LPMs had caused them inconvenience.
We have reported empirical information on human exposures to live poultry, perception of risk for influenza A(H7N9), and behavioral responses to the 2013 influenza A(H7N9) outbreak in China. We found that exposure to LPMs in urban areas is common: 20%–50% of urban residents report >1 visit to an LPM in the preceding year (Table 2). Most respondents who purchased poultry in LPMs reported close contact with live poultry before slaughter. It is likely that the number of laboratory-confirmed cases of influenza A(H7N9) virus infection is lower than the actual number of human infections to date (8), and our results show that a broad cross-section of urban residents could be exposed to influenza A(H7N9) virus if it were prevalent among poultry in LPMs. In the spring 2013 outbreak, some evidence pointed to high prevalence of influenza A(H7N9) virus in certain LPMs (6), whereas official surveillance data from the Ministry of Agriculture identified the virus in only a small proportion of samples collected from across the country (of 4,488 samples tested, 0.9% were positive for the virus) (11). The absolute risk for human infection after close contact with poultry infected with the influenza A(H7N9) virus remains unclear.
We found that men in the 55–64-year age group had more exposures to live poultry than women in that age group, but no difference by sex among the small number of respondents ≥65 years of age in Shanghai (Figure 3). We had previously hypothesized that exposure to poultry in LPMs might be higher for older men than for older women (3). Our findings suggest that the higher risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H7N9) virus infection among men during the spring 2013 outbreak in the Yangtze River Delta might not be explained by sex differences in exposure but rather by increased susceptibility to serious disease after infection among men (e.g., because of greater prevalence of co-existing conditions) or by increased access to health care and laboratory testing for men. However, our sample size was relatively small, particularly for respondents >65 years of age. As in a previous report of live poultry exposures in the southern China cities of Guangzhou in 2006 and Shenzhen in 2007 (9), we did not identify major differences in exposures among middle-aged adults compared with exposures among the elderly. However, most laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H7N9) cases have been in persons >60 years of age (3), consistent with our hypothesis that exposures in middle-aged adults may have led to milder disease that was less likely to result in laboratory testing (3,9).
A minority of respondents reported willingness to accept LPM closures in the event of future outbreaks of influenza A(H7N9). During the winter 2013–14 influenza season, in some areas where human cases of influenza A(H7N9) had been reported, local governments implemented short-term LPM closures; other administrations, including that of Shanghai, closed LPMs for longer periods. However, such interventions can have serious economic consequences. Given the lack of public support for LPM closure and the related economic concerns, whether to make additional closures should be considered carefully. Regular rest days (i.e., days on which live poultry are not sold and stalls must be disinfected and left empty of live birds) and bans on overnight retention of live poultry in markets have been successful in controlling the transmission of avian influenza viruses in LPMs in Hong Kong (20,21) and have been proposed in some areas of China (8).
Although almost all cases of influenza A(H7N9) cases have been identified in areas within or surrounding large cities, about half of the laboratory-confirmed avian influenza A(H5N1) cases in China were identified in rural residents, which indicates that avian influenza viruses can reach backyard poultry flocks and pose a risk to human health (3). Influenza A(H7N9) virus does not appear to have spread to backyard flocks at this time, however. Most confirmed human cases have occurred in urban areas among persons who have reported recent exposure to live poultry in LPMs, although a smaller number of cases occurred in persons who have reported recent exposure to backyard poultry (3). However, if the circulation of influenza A(H7N9) virus in backyard poultry were to increase, the number of potential exposures could be substantial because almost half of rural residents report raising backyard poultry. The risk for influenza A(H5N1) virus infection among rural residents has been reduced through better education about the danger of close contact with, or consumption of, sick or dead backyard poultry (22,23). Unfortunately, this approach would not be effective for controlling spread of influenza A(H7N9) virus because infected chickens do not show signs of illness.
Perception of risk for influenza A(H7N9) infection by respondents to our surveys was generally low, as might be expected given the small number of laboratory-confirmed cases in China. However, low perception of risk could pose difficulties for policy measures such as closure of LPMs. Indeed, we found generally low levels of public support for long-term closure of LPMs (Table 2), particularly in cities that had not been affected by influenza A(H7N9). Respondents in Guangzhou and Shanghai reported higher likelihood than residents of other cities that they would be worried if they showed signs and symptoms of ILI. This finding is unsurprising for Shanghai, but there had been no confirmed influenza A(H7N9) cases in Guangzhou at the time of our survey.
Our study has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional study design did not enable us to identify changes over time in risk perception or preventive behaviors. Having access to data on live poultry exposures before the identification of influenza A(H7N9) virus infections would have been helpful because the epidemic may have led to changes in exposure patterns by the time our survey was conducted. Second, because the survey was conducted by telephone in urban areas and face-to-face in rural areas, our results may have been affected by selection bias. We did attempt multiple calls to unanswered telephone numbers in an attempt to mitigate this bias, but the overall response rate for the telephone survey was low. Also, because the respondents self-reported their behaviors, the results might be affected by response biases (e.g., if respondents had incomplete recollection of past visits to LPMs). In particular, results could have been affected by social desirability bias if respondents felt uncomfortable reporting true patterns of poultry exposure or attitudes toward government interventions and preferred to report what they perceived to be ideal or most acceptable.
Third, our analyses did not explore in depth the social or psychological factors underlying behavioral responses to influenza A(H7N9), such as the effect of perceived risk or severity. This area might be productive for further investigation. Fourth, similar to other cross-sectional knowledge–attitude–behavior studies, our survey could only provide descriptive data on live poultry exposure, risk perception, and behavioral changes. Inferences on the associations between different psychobehavioral factors will require further study. Furthermore, we did not investigate seasonal variation in poultry-purchasing behaviors, which could also be studied in longitudinal surveys.
In conclusion, exposures to live poultry are common in many areas of China. If influenza A(H7N9) virus were to become more prevalent among poultry, the number of human exposures could be substantial in the absence of control measures. Our findings highlight possible problems in the structure of the live poultry trade in China and the potential for improved protection of human and animal health (8,24).
Dr Wang is a director of the Branch of General Affairs on Infectious Disease, Division of Infectious Disease, Key Laboratory of Surveillance and Early-warning on Infectious Disease, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Her research interests include notifiable infectious diseases surveillance and related policy research.
We thank Hang Zhou and Zhibin Peng for questionnaire preparation and Qiaohong Liao, Hui Jiang, Xiang Ren, Vicky Fang, Michael Ni, and Hoi Wa Wong for technical assistance.
This study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health (Comprehensive International Program for Research on AIDS grant U19 AI51915); the China–US Collaborative Program on Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases; and grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, China (2012 ZX10004-201); the Harvard Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (grant no. U54 GM088558); the Research Fund for the Control of Infectious Disease, Food and Health Bureau, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (grant no. HKU-13-06-01); and the Area of Excellence Scheme of the Hong Kong University Grants Committee (grant no. AoE/M-12/06). The funding bodies had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, preparation of the manuscript, or the decision to publish.
L.W., B.J.C., P.W., G.M.L., and H.Y. designed the study; L.W., J.Y., F.L., and L.Z. collected data; and L.W., B.J.C., P.W., and J.Y. analyzed data. L.W. and B.J.C. wrote the first draft of this article, and all authors contributed to review and revision of the report.
- World Health Organization. Human infection with avian influenza A(H7N9) virus—update [cited 2014 Apr 1]. http://www.who.int/csr/don/2013_11_06/en/index.html
- China Information System for Disease Control and Prevention. Beijing: Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention [cited 2014 Apr 1]. http://188.8.131.52/
- Cowling BJ, Jin L, Lau EH, Liao Q, Wu P, Jiang H, Comparative epidemiology of human infections with avian influenza A H7N9 and H5N1 viruses in China: a population-based study of laboratory-confirmed cases. Lancet. 2013;382:129–37.
- Chen E, Chen Y, Fu L, Chen Z, Gong Z, Mao H, Human infection with avian influenza A(H7N9) virus re-emerges in China in winter 2013. Euro Surveill. 2013;18:20616 .
- Li Q, Zhou L, Zhou M, Chen Z, Li F, Wu H, Epidemiology of human infections with avian influenza A(H7N9) virus in China. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:520–32.
- Chen Y, Liang W, Yang S, Wu N, Gao H, Sheng J, Human infections with the emerging avian influenza A H7N9 virus from wet market poultry: clinical analysis and characterisation of viral genome. Lancet. 2013;381:1916–25.
- Bao CJ, Cui LB, Zhou MH, Hong L, Gao GF, Wang H. Live-animal markets and influenza A(H7N9) virus infection. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2337–9.
- Yu H, Wu JT, Cowling BJ, Liao Q, Fang VJ, Zhou S, Effect of closure of live poultry markets on poultry-to-person transmission of avian influenza A H7N9 virus: an ecological study. Lancet. 2014;383:541–8.
- Cowling BJ, Freeman G, Wong JY, Wu P, Liao Q, Lau EH, Preliminary inferences on the age-specific seriousness of human disease caused by avian influenza A(H7N9) infections in China, March to April 2013. Euro Surveill. 2013;18:20475 .
- Liao Q, Lam WT, Leung GM, Jiang C, Fielding R. Live poultry exposure, Guangzhou, China, 2006. Epidemics. 2009;1:207–12.
- Epidemic release of the Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China [cited 2014 Apr 1]. http://www.moa.gov.cn/zwllm/yjgl/yqfb/
- Dawa county. Liaoning province, North-eastern China [Internet] [updated 2014 Jan 23; cited 2014 Feb 1]. http://baike.baidu.com/view/119258.htm
- Zijin county. Guangdong province, Southern China [Internet] [updated 2014 Feb 1; cited 2014 Feb 1]. http://baike.baidu.com/view/204129.htm
- Nanzhang county. Hubei province, Mid China. [Internet] [updated 2013 Dec 19; cited 2014 Feb 1]. http://baike.baidu.com/link?url=hC6vMe6VQP8rq3kHC3GI0SK2NIVlmbkgM6TI2OBUy0GQl9Twvjk1eOqLb_MzD4ER
- Pengxi county. Sichuan province, Western China. [Internet] [updated 2012 Mar 20; cited 2014 Feb 1]. http://wenku.baidu.com/view/e1c74214f18583d0496459f3.html
- Leung GM, Ho LM, Chan SK, Ho SY, Bacon-Shone J, Choy RY, Longitudinal assessment of community psychobehavioral responses during and after the 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Hong Kong. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:1713–20.
- Leung GM, Lam TH, Ho LM, Ho SY, Chan BH, Wong IO, The impact of community psychological responses on outbreak control for severe acute respiratory syndrome in Hong Kong. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57:857–63.
- Cowling BJ, Ng DM, Ip DK, Liao Q, Lam WW, Wu JT, Community psychological and behavioral responses through the first wave of the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic in Hong Kong. J Infect Dis. 2010;202:867–76.
- Gao R, Cao B, Hu Y, Feng Z, Wang D, Hu W, Human infection with a novel avian-origin influenza A(H7N9) virus. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1888–97.
- Fournié G, Guitian FJ, Mangtani P, Ghani AC. Impact of the implementation of rest days in live bird markets on the dynamics of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza. J R Soc Interface. 2011;8:1079–89.
- Leung YH, Lau EH, Zhang LJ, Guan Y, Cowling BJ, Peiris JS. Avian influenza and ban on overnight poultry storage in live poultry markets, Hong Kong. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18:1339–41.
- Di Giuseppe G, Abbate R, Albano L, Marinelli P, Angelillo IF. A survey of knowledge, attitudes and practices towards avian influenza in an adult population of Italy. BMC Infect Dis. 2008;8:36.
- Leslie T, Billaud J, Mofleh J, Mustafa L, Yingst S. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding avian influenza (H5N1), Afghanistan. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008;14:1459–61.
- Fournié G, Pfeiffer DU. Can closure of live poultry markets halt the spread of H7N9? Lancet. 2014;383:496–7.
Suggested citation for this article: Wang L, Cowling BJ, Wu P, Yu J, Li F, Zeng L, et al. Human exposure to live poultry and psychological and behavioral responses to influenza A(H7N9), China. Emerg Infect Dis [Internet]. 2014 Aug [date cited]. http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid2008.131821
1These authors contributed equally to this article.
- Page created: July 18, 2014
- Page last updated: July 18, 2014
- Page last reviewed: July 18, 2014
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID)
Office of the Director (OD)