Original Article

Evaluation of Our Rabies Prevention Practices: Is Our Approach Correct?


Background: Rabies disease is zoonotic disease-causing encephalitis and resulting in death. It is possible to prevent the disease with suitable prophylaxis approaches. This study examined the compliance of post-exposure prophylaxis approaches with the guidelines and the reasons for non-compliance in contact cases at risk of rabies.

Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study includes patients who continued the vaccination program from 2014-2018 at the Ordu University Medical Faculty Hospital Rabies Vaccination Center in Ordu, Turkey. Cases were assessed in terms of sociodemographic features, previous rabies vaccination history, features of the contact with rabies risk, attendance duration after contact, and whether all stages of prophylaxis were completed after contact.

Results: Of the 748 cases attending the vaccination center, the age range was 1- 91 yr, with a mean age of 28.12 ± 21.60 yr. Of cases, 62.3% were male (n =466) and 37.7% were female (n =282). Of risky contact, 60% comprised stray animals. Of recorded cases, 55.2% displayed approaches compatible with guidelines. Among incompliant approaches, the most frequent was administering vaccines even though observation was sufficient. (n = 174, 52%).

Conclusion: Contact with risk of rabies may result in insufficient administration of the stages in prophylaxis after contact, or contrarily, mistaken administration based on acting with a sense of excessive safety. Stray dogs or domestic animals without sufficient vaccinations comprise a significant risk despite all efforts. In order to prevent risky contact, there is a need for the development of correct strategies and to ensure continuity of in-service training for health professionals.


1. Fooks AR, Banyard AC, Horton DL, et al. (2014). Current status of rabies and pro-spects for elimination. Lancet, 11:1389-99.
2. Aylan O, Baykam N, Güner R, et al (2019). Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health Rabies Prophylaxis Guidelines. Publication of the Ministry of Health- Turkey, 1-43.
3. World Health Organization (WHO). Last ac-cessed date: 2021 Jan 10. Available from https://www.who.int/ith/vaccines/rabies/en/
4. Hwang GS, Rizk E, Bui LN, etal (2020). Ad-herence to guideline recommendations for human rabies immune globulin pa-tient selection, dosing, timing, and ana-tomical site of administration in rabies postexposure prophylaxis. Hum Vaccin Immunother, 16:51-60.
5. Parize P, Dacheux L, Larrous F, et al (2018). The shift in rabies epidemiology in France: time to adjust rabies post-exposure risk assessment. Euro Surveill, 23:1-11.
6. Dougas G, Konte V, Mitrou K, et al (2019). Surveillance of Rabies Postexposure Prophylaxis in Greece: 4 Years Experi-ence. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis, 19:295-301.
7. World Health Organization (WHO). Last ac-cessed date: 2021 Jun 16. Available from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/rabies
8. Freeman AJ, Senn DR, Arendt DM (2005). Seven hundred seventy eight bite marks: analysis by anatomic location, victim and biter demographics, type of crime, and legal disposition. J Forensic Sci, 50:1436-43.
9. Timur A, Balcı E, Turker K, et al (2018). Evaluation of Exposures With Rabies Risk Between 2009 and 2014 in Kayseri, Turkey. Klimik Derg, 31:135-8.
10. Yin C, Zhou H, Wu H, et al. (2012). Analysis on Factors Related to Rabies Epidemic in China from 2007-2011. Virol Sin, 27:132-143.
11. Dodet B, Korejwo J, Briggs DJ (2013). Eliminating the scourge of dog transmit-ted rabies. Vaccine, 31:1359.
12. Hampson K, Coudeville L, Lembo T, et al (2015). Estimating the global burden of endemic canine rabies. PLoS Negl Trop Dis, 9:e0003709.
13. Global Alliance for Rabies Control. Last ac-cessed date: 2021 Jun 16. Available from rabiesalliance.org
14. Sengoz G, Yaşar KK, Karabela SN, et al (2006). Evaluation of cases admitted to a center in İstanbul, Turkey in 2003 for ra-bies vaccination and three rabies cases followed up in the last 15 years. Jpn J Infect Dis, 59:254-257.
15. Matibag GC, Ohbayashi Y, Kanda K, et al (2009). A pilot study on the usefulness of information and education campaign ma-terials in enhancing the knowledge, atti-tude and practice on rabies in rural Sri Lanka. J Infect Dev Ctries, 3:55-64.
16. Dubnov J, Hefer E, Rubin L, et al (2006). A change in rabies post-exposure treatment guidelines after decision analysis in Israel. Eur J Pub Health, 17(1):92-7.
17. Tepsumethanon S, Tepsumethanon V, Tantawichien T, et al. (2007). Problems in human rabies post exposure prophylaxis management. Travel Med Infect Dis, 5(3):189-93.
18. Li JR (2014). Application of rabies vaccine and human rabies immunoglobulin in Fujian Strait. J Prev Med, 20: 79e81.
19. Kilic B, Unal B, Semin S, et al. (2006). An important public health problem: rabies suspected bites and post-exposure prophylaxis in a health district in Turkey. Int J Infect Dis,10: 248-254.
IssueVol 51 No 9 (2022) QRcode
SectionOriginal Article(s)
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v51i9.10568
Rabies Postexposure prophylaxis Prophylaxis compliance Turkey

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Altunçekiç Yıldırım A, Doğan A, Kurt C, Çetinkol Y. Evaluation of Our Rabies Prevention Practices: Is Our Approach Correct?. Iran J Public Health. 2022;51(9):2128-2134.