Communication and social capital in the control of avian influenza: lessons from behaviour change experiences in the Mekong Region

Abstract

International development agencies, national governments, and nongovernmental organizations are increasingly collaborating with local civil society groups in mounting behaviour change communication (BCC) interventions. Even in countries with weakened civil societies, the social capital of local organizations can be a fundamental communication resource. The experience of three programmes in the Mekong Region that used BCC to prevent and control outbreaks of avian influenza bore out this finding. These programmes worked with the Vietnam Women's Union to mobilize local women as conduits for education; worked with the Centre d'Etude et de Développement Agricole Cambodgien (CEDAC), in Cambodia, to educate and train village health promoters and model farmers; and worked with the Lao Journalists Association to educate and build skills among print and broadcast journalists to enhance avian influenza coverage. Collaborating with civil society organizations can enhance communication reach, trust, and local ownership, but poses many challenges, particularly institutional capacity. Our experience, nevertheless, holds promise for a measured approach that views social capital as a set of communication resources at the community level that can be mobilized to promote complex behaviours, particularly in a rapidly changing outbreak situation.

Keywords:

• Avian influenza
• social capital
• civil society
• behaviour change communication

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Dr. Susan Zimicki and Dee Bennett of AED for spearheading the research and BCC aspects, respectively, of this work. Anton Schneider (Lao PDR), Eleanora de Guzman (Vietnam), and Angelique Smit (Cambodia) provided outstanding country-level implementation of these interventions, as well as valuable input to this article. Thanks also to Wendy Hammond for outstanding editorial assistance. This article is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (Contract GHS-I-00-03-00036, Task Order 3). The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of AED and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Notes

1. Pre-test scores varied widely among provinces. In the south, some provinces had pre-test scores lower than 20% correct answers, while others scored over 80%. VWU staff posited that these results reflected regional differences in animal health worker practices.

2. Face-to-face interviews, using a structured questionnaire, were conducted among 495 rural backyard poultry farmers (only the main household decision-makers in buying, selling, and raising poultry were interviewed), in November–December 2005, in areas that had experienced outbreaks and areas that had not yet experienced outbreaks. KAP data showed that most households raised chickens as a protein source for the family diet.

3. The Lao baseline KAP survey gathered information in face-to-face interviews, using a structured questionnaire, in August 2006. Overall, 960 rural backyard poultry farmers (defined as having 10–100 adult poultry excluding fighting cocks), identified as the main household decision-makers on poultry farming, were surveyed in four provinces: Vientiane Capital, Luang Prabang, Savannakhet, and Champassack (240 in each province). Three village groups were selected randomly in each district, and two villages were randomly selected in each village group (10 interviews per village).