Despite the novelty and significance level of these findings, some methodological considerations ought to be highlighted when interpreting our results. First, the analyses were based on cross-sectional data and the findings of the analysis of factors associated with the outcomes of interest should be interpreted with caution given the nature of the associations that limited us from drawing definitive causal conclusions or direction of causality about the observed relationships between among independent characteristics and the outcomes measured. However, we feel that our study design was adequate to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors relating to avian influenza and identify what percentage of these could be explained by several potential predictors. Second, the study was limited to those parents of children in randomly selected schools, which may have implications for the generalizability of the results. However, because in our country the education is mandatory until the age of 16 irrespective of the characteristics of the parents, we believe our results are generalizable to all population. Third, all variables used in this analysis were gathered using entirely respondents' self-reports and self-perceptions, and biases in perception and reporting cannot be ruled out. The problem with self-reporting is that participants' responses may reflect intentionally or unintentionally perceived desirable responses or an attempt to inflate or minimize reports of behaviors. However, to gain a true reflection of knowledge and behavior, respondents were assured that their responses would not be shared, since the survey was delivered with the responses that were anonymous to encourage accurate recording. Fourth, it was not possible to identify characteristics of those who failed to return the questionnaire, so it was not possible to establish whether they were in any way different from those who did return it. However, there is no obvious reason to suspect that non-responders were substantially different from responders. Despite the potential limitations, the main advantage of the current study is that we were able to achieve a relatively large sample and the high response rate excludes one major potential source of bias in the results. We believe that this high response rate was made possible through the extreme importance of the topic surveyed.