Fig 1.
Integration of qualitative and microbiological methods (convergent mixed-methods design) to investigate zoonotic pathogen exposure in children.
We used: A. Microbiological methods (qPCR) for the detection of zoonotic enteric pathogens to answer Q1 B. Qualitative methods, go-along semi-structured in-depth interviews (IDIs), to answer Q2. C. Triangulation of qualitative and microbial data to answer Q3. Created in BioRender. Alban, V. (2026) https://BioRender.com/7j6blpq [20].
Table 1.
Household animal ownership by animal species and community.
Fig 2.
Prevalence and concentration of zoonotic enteric pathogens in animal feces by animal species.
A. Bar plots show the prevalence (%) of each enteric pathogen detected in animal fecal samples, stratified by site type. Each bar represents the proportion of positive samples for a given pathogen. Pathogens include aEPEC, Salmonella sp., Campylobacter sp., STEC, and Cryptosporidium sp., with “Any pathogen” indicating detection of at least one pathogen in the sample. Bar height and color reflect pathogen-specific prevalence. B. Boxplots show the concentration of pathogens (log10 copies/g) detected in animal fecal samples by animal species. Each box represents the interquartile range (IQR) with the median indicated by a horizontal line. Cryptosporidium sp. concentrations are not included because the ELISA assay used only allowed for presence/absence detection.
Fig 3.
Abundance and coinfection patterns of zoonotic enteric pathogens in animal feces by community.
A. Bar plots show the prevalence (%) of each enteric pathogen detected in animal fecal samples, stratified by community. Each bar represents the proportion of positive samples for a given pathogen. Pathogens include aEPEC, Salmonella sp., Campylobacter sp., STEC, and Cryptosporidium sp., with “Any pathogen” indicating detection of at least one pathogen in the sample. Bar height and color reflect pathogen-specific prevalence. B. Boxplots show the concentration of pathogens (log10 copies/g) detected in animal fecal samples by community. Each box represents the interquartile range (IQR) with the median indicated by a horizontal line. Cryptosporidium sp. concentrations are not included because the ELISA assay used only allowed for presence/absence detection.
Fig 4.
Proportion of coinfections, single infections or no infection with zoonotic enteric pathogens in animal fecal samples by animal species and community.
Stacked bar plots depicting the proportion of coinfections (black), single infections (dark gray) and no infections (light gray) in animal fecal samples, stratified by animal species and community.
Fig 5.
Conceptual illustration of animal fecal contamination across the urban-rural gradient.
Illustration of changes in animal presence and the potential for environmental fecal contamination across the study areas. In rural areas (left), large animals are kept on farms across the river, while small animals roam freely around households. Animal feces from multiple animal types are commonly observed in the rural household environment. In the intermediate setting (center), both small and large animals are present near homes, though large animals are often kept in containment structures (e.g., animal pens). Animal feces from multiple animal types are commonly observed in the immediate household environment. In urban areas (right), fewer animals are present, and small animals, particularly pets, are more commonly kept in household patios or balconies. Animal feces, predominantly from dogs, are observed in the urban household environment. Created in BioRender. Alban, V. (2026) https://BioRender.com/6e5ise9 [30].
Table 2.
Integrated summary of qualitative observations and microbiological results by community.