Human-bat contacts in the Netherlands, and potential risks for virus exchange

Show simplified metadata
dc.contributor.authorBegeman, L
dc.contributor.authorGeschiere, MJM
dc.contributor.authorde Boer, WF
dc.contributor.authorvan den Brand, JMA
dc.contributor.authorEblé, PL
dc.contributor.authorvan der Kerkhof, JHTC
dc.contributor.authorKeur, I
dc.contributor.authorLina, PHC
dc.contributor.authorReusken, CBEM
dc.contributor.authorde Rosa, M
dc.contributor.authorSchillemans, MJ
dc.contributor.authorSchreuder, I
dc.contributor.authorSwaan, CM
dc.contributor.authorvan Zoonen, K
dc.contributor.authorKuiken, T
dc.date.accessioned2025-02-20T08:39:21Z
dc.date.available2025-02-20T08:39:21Z
dc.date.issued2025-02-15
dc.description.abstractContacts between people and free-ranging animals have a potential to cause viral disease epidemics when novel viruses are exchanged. The Netherlands has approximately 18 native bat species, of which some generally use buildings for roosting, and has a dense human population. Frequent indirect and direct contacts between bats and humans could thus be expected, however, this has hardly been studied.
dc.description.abstractTo study human-bat contacts, people living in the Netherlands were questioned about the type and frequency of their bat contacts, their bat knowledge and perception of bats. For analyses respondents were grouped into (1) general population, (2) bat contact risk group, and (3) people that live in a house with a roost site for a Common Pipistrelle Bat maternity group. Associations between human-bat contacts and other variables were tested by an ordinal logistic regression model.
dc.description.abstractWe show that 85% (226/265) of group 1 reported no contacts, while 11% (28/265) reported indirect, and 4% (11/265) direct contacts with live bats, dead bats or bat products as their closest type of contacts. These contacts occurred mostly less than yearly. Somewhat similarly, the majority, 69% (9/13) of group 3 reported no contacts, and 15% (2/13) reported indirect contacts and 15% (2/13) reported direct contacts. These occurred monthly to less than yearly. In contrast, a minority, 5% (11/227) in group 2 reported no contacts, while 37% (85/227) reported direct bat contacts, mostly yearly, and 38% (86/227) reported bat-related injury, mostly less than yearly, as their closest type of contact. Overall, an increase in knowledge on bats and bat-related diseases was correlated with closer bat contacts.
dc.description.abstractWe conclude that even though bats live close to people in the Netherlands, direct contacts between bats, or bat products, and humans are rare in people from the general population, while being common in people involved in bat-related work. Mitigation of human-bat contacts will be most efficient when targeted to specific groups that are likely to have contacts with bats.
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s42522-024-00132-6
dc.identifier.journalOne Health Outlook 2025; 7(1):7
dc.identifier.pii10.1186/s42522-024-00132-6
dc.identifier.pmid39953592
dc.identifier.urihttps://rivm.openrepository.com/handle/10029/628309
dc.language.isoen
dc.rights© 2025. The Author(s).
dc.source.beginpage7
dc.source.countryEngland
dc.source.issue1
dc.source.journaltitleOne health outlook
dc.source.volume7
dc.subjectChiroptera
dc.subjectHuman-bat interface
dc.subjectLyssavirus
dc.subjectQuestionnaire
dc.subjectVirus
dc.subjectZoonoses
dc.titleHuman-bat contacts in the Netherlands, and potential risks for virus exchange
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
Files
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.6 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Scientific articles and other publications