1
|
Amenu K, McIntyre KM, Moje N, Knight-Jones T, Rushton J, Grace D. Approaches for disease prioritization and decision-making in animal health, 2000-2021: a structured scoping review. Front Vet Sci 2023; 10:1231711. [PMID: 37876628 PMCID: PMC10593474 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1231711] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2023] [Accepted: 09/06/2023] [Indexed: 10/26/2023] Open
Abstract
This scoping review identifies and describes the methods used to prioritize diseases for resource allocation across disease control, surveillance, and research and the methods used generally in decision-making on animal health policy. Three electronic databases (Medline/PubMed, Embase, and CAB Abstracts) were searched for articles from 2000 to 2021. Searches identified 6, 395 articles after de-duplication, with an additional 64 articles added manually. A total of 6, 460 articles were imported to online document review management software (sysrev.com) for screening. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, 532 articles passed the first screening, and after a second round of screening, 336 articles were recommended for full review. A total of 40 articles were removed after data extraction. Another 11 articles were added, having been obtained from cross-citations of already identified articles, providing a total of 307 articles to be considered in the scoping review. The results show that the main methods used for disease prioritization were based on economic analysis, multi-criteria evaluation, risk assessment, simple ranking, spatial risk mapping, and simulation modeling. Disease prioritization was performed to aid in decision-making related to various categories: (1) disease control, prevention, or eradication strategies, (2) general organizational strategy, (3) identification of high-risk areas or populations, (4) assessment of risk of disease introduction or occurrence, (5) disease surveillance, and (6) research priority setting. Of the articles included in data extraction, 50.5% had a national focus, 12.3% were local, 11.9% were regional, 6.5% were sub-national, and 3.9% were global. In 15.2% of the articles, the geographic focus was not specified. The scoping review revealed the lack of comprehensive, integrated, and mutually compatible approaches to disease prioritization and decision support tools for animal health. We recommend that future studies should focus on creating comprehensive and harmonized frameworks describing methods for disease prioritization and decision-making tools in animal health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kebede Amenu
- Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) Programme, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
- Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Veterinary, Public Health, College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, Bishoftu, Ethiopia
- Animal and Human Health Program, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
| | - K. Marie McIntyre
- Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) Programme, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
- Department of Livestock and One Health, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
- Modelling, Evidence and Policy Group, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Nebyou Moje
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, Bishoftu, Ethiopia
| | - Theodore Knight-Jones
- Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) Programme, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
- Animal and Human Health Program, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
| | - Jonathan Rushton
- Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) Programme, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
- Department of Livestock and One Health, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| | - Delia Grace
- Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) Programme, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
- Food and Markets Department, Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom
- Animal and Human Health Program, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Guerra MMM, de Almeida AM, Willingham AL. An overview of food safety and bacterial foodborne zoonoses in food production animals in the Caribbean region. Trop Anim Health Prod 2016; 48:1095-108. [PMID: 27215411 PMCID: PMC4943981 DOI: 10.1007/s11250-016-1082-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2016] [Accepted: 05/09/2016] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Foodborne diseases (FBDs) in the Caribbean have a high economic burden. Public health and tourism concerns rise along with the increasing number of cases and outbreaks registered over the last 20 years. Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., and Campylobacter spp. are the main bacteria associated with these incidents. In spite of undertaking limited surveillance on FBD in the region, records related to bacterial foodborne zoonoses in food-producing animals and their associated epidemiologic significance are poorly documented, giving rise to concerns about the importance of the livestock, food animal product sectors, and consumption patterns. In this review, we report the available published literature over the last 20 years on selected bacterial foodborne zoonoses in the Caribbean region and also address other food safety-related aspects (e.g., FBD food attribution, importance, surveillance), mainly aiming at recognizing data gaps and identifying possible research approaches in the animal health sector.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Andre M de Almeida
- Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine, P.O. Box 334, Basseterre, St. Kitts and Nevis.
| | - Arve Lee Willingham
- Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine, P.O. Box 334, Basseterre, St. Kitts and Nevis
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Brioudes A, Gummow B. Field application of a combined pig and poultry market chain and risk pathway analysis within the Pacific Islands region as a tool for targeted disease surveillance and biosecurity. Prev Vet Med 2016; 129:13-22. [PMID: 27317319 DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.05.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2015] [Revised: 05/07/2016] [Accepted: 05/09/2016] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
Limited resources are one of the major constraints in effective disease monitoring and control in developing countries. This paper examines the pig and poultry market chains of four targeted Pacific Island countries and territories (PICTs): Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu and combines them with a risk pathway analysis to identify the highest risk areas (risk hotspots) and risky practices and behaviours (risk factors) of animal disease introduction and/or spread, using highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) as model diseases because of their importance in the region. The results show that combining a market chain analysis with risk pathways is a practical way of communicating risk to animal health officials and improving biosecurity. It provides a participatory approach that helps officials to better understand the trading regulations in place in their country and to better evaluate their role as part of the control system. Common risk patterns were found to play a role in all four PICTs. Legal trade pathways rely essentially on preventive measures put in place in the exporting countries while no or only limited control measures are undertaken by the importing countries. Legal importations of animals and animal products are done mainly by commercial farms which then supply local smallholders. Targeting surveillance on these potential hotspots would limit the risk of introduction and spread of animal diseases within the pig and poultry industry and better rationalize use of skilled manpower. Swill feeding is identified as a common practice in the region that represents a recognized risk factor for dissemination of pathogens to susceptible species. Illegal introduction of animals and animal products is suspected, but appears restricted to small holder farms in remote areas, limiting the risk of spread of transboundary animal diseases along the market chain. Introduction of undeclared goods hidden within a legal trade activity was identified as a major risk pathway. Activities such as awareness campaigns for pig and poultry farmers regarding disease reporting, biosecurity measures or danger of swill feeding and training of biosecurity officers in basic animal health and import-associated risks are recommended to prevent and limit the spread of pathogens within the PICTs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aurélie Brioudes
- Discipline of Veterinary Sciences, College of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville 4811, Queensland, Australia
| | - Bruce Gummow
- Discipline of Veterinary Sciences, College of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville 4811, Queensland, Australia; Department of Production Animal Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
| |
Collapse
|