Dataset Information

Exposure to Animal Feces and Human Health: A Systematic Review and Proposed Research Priorities.

ABSTRACT: Humans can be exposed to pathogens from poorly managed animal feces, particularly in communities where animals live in close proximity to humans. This systematic review of peer-reviewed and gray literature examines the human health impacts of exposure to poorly managed animal feces transmitted via water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)-related pathways in low- and middle-income countries, where household livestock, small-scale animal operations, and free-roaming animals are common. We identify routes of contamination by animal feces, control measures to reduce human exposure, and propose research priorities for further inquiry. Exposure to animal feces has been associated with diarrhea, soil-transmitted helminth infection, trachoma, environmental enteric dysfunction, and growth faltering. Few studies have evaluated control measures, but interventions include reducing cohabitation with animals, provision of animal feces scoops, controlling animal movement, creating safe child spaces, improving veterinary care, and hygiene promotion. Future research should evaluate: behaviors related to points of contact with animal feces; animal fecal contamination of food; cultural behaviors of animal fecal management; acute and chronic health risks associated with exposure to animal feces; and factors influencing concentrations and shedding rates of pathogens originating from animal feces.

SUBMITTER: Penakalapati G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5647569 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exposure to Animal Feces and Human Health: A Systematic Review and Proposed Research Priorities.

Penakalapati Gauthami G Swarthout Jenna J Delahoy Miranda J MJ McAliley Lydia L Wodnik Breanna B Levy Karen K Freeman Matthew C MC

Environmental science & technology 20171009 20

Humans can be exposed to pathogens from poorly managed animal feces, particularly in communities where animals live in close proximity to humans. This systematic review of peer-reviewed and gray literature examines the human health impacts of exposure to poorly managed animal feces transmitted via water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)-related pathways in low- and middle-income countries, where household livestock, small-scale animal operations, and free-roaming animals are common. We identify ro ...[more]

PMID: 28926696

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe role of the human microbiome in health and disease is an emerging and important area of research; however, there is a concern that African populations are under-represented in human microbiome studies. We, therefore, conducted a systematic survey of African human microbiome studies to provide an overview and identify research gaps. Our secondary objectives were: (i) to determine the number of peer-reviewed publications; (ii) to identify the extent to which the researches focused on diseases identified by the World Health Organization [WHO] State of Health in the African Region Report as being the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in 2018; (iii) to describe the extent and pattern of collaborations between researchers in Africa and the rest of the world; and (iv) to identify leadership and funders of the studies.MethodologyWe systematically searched Medline via PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, Africa-Wide Information through EBSCOhost, and Web of Science from inception through to 1st April 2020. We included studies that characterized samples from African populations using next-generation sequencing approaches. Two reviewers independently conducted the literature search, title and abstract, and full-text screening, as well as data extraction.ResultsWe included 168 studies out of 5515 records retrieved. Most studies were published in PLoS One (13%; 22/168), and samples were collected from 33 of the 54 African countries. The country where most studies were conducted was South Africa (27/168), followed by Kenya (23/168) and Uganda (18/168). 26.8% (45/168) focused on diseases of significant public health concern in Africa. Collaboration between scientists from the United States of America and Africa was most common (96/168). The first and/or last authors of 79.8% of studies were not affiliated with institutions in Africa. Major funders were the United States of America National Institutes of Health (45.2%; 76/168), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (17.8%; 30/168), and the European Union (11.9%; 20/168).ConclusionsThere are significant gaps in microbiome research in Africa, especially those focusing on diseases of public health importance. There is a need for local leadership, capacity building, intra-continental collaboration, and national government investment in microbiome research within Africa. Video Abstract.

Project description:BackgroundThe burgeoning field of biomedical research involving the mixture of human and animal materials has attracted significant ethical controversy. Due to the many dimensions of potential ethical conflict involved in this type of research, and the wide variety of research projects under discussion, it is difficult to obtain an overview of the ethical debate. This paper attempts to remedy this by providing a systematic review of ethical reasons in academic publications on human-animal chimera research.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the ethical literature concerning human-animal chimeras based on the research question: "What ethical reasons have been given for or against conducting human-animal chimera research, and how have these reasons been treated in the ongoing debate?" Our search extends until the end of the year 2017, including MEDLINE, Embase, PhilPapers and EthxWeb databases, restricted to peer-reviewed journal publications in English. Papers containing ethical reasons were analyzed, and the reasons were coded according to whether they were endorsed, mentioned or rejected.ResultsFour hundred thirty-one articles were retrieved by our search, and 88 were ultimately included and analyzed. Within these articles, we found 464 passages containing reasons for and against conducting human-animal chimera research. We classified these reasons into five categories and, within these, identified 12 broad and 31 narrow reason types. 15% of the retrieved passages contained reasons in favor of conducting chimera research (Category P), while 85% of the passages contained reasons against it. The reasons against conducting chimera research fell into four further categories: reasons concerning the creation of a chimera (Category A), its treatment (Category B), reasons referring to metaphysical or social issues resulting from its existence (Category C) and to potential downstream effects of chimera research (Category D). A significant proportion of identified passages (46%) fell under Category C.ConclusionsWe hope that our results, in revealing the conceptual and argumentative structure of the debate and highlighting some its most notable tendencies and prominent positions, will facilitate continued discussion and provide a basis for the development of relevant policy and legislation.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular.Methods/designThe objectives of this systematic review are as follows: •To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. •To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. •To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews.DiscussionResults are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care.

Dataset Information

Exposure to Animal Feces and Human Health: A Systematic Review and Proposed Research Priorities.

Publications

Exposure to Animal Feces and Human Health: A Systematic Review and Proposed Research Priorities.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets