Dataset Information

Research priorities for control of zoonoses in South Africa.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Zoonoses pose major threats to the health of humans, domestic animals and wildlife, as seen in the COVID-19 pandemic. Zoonoses are the commonest source of emerging human infections and inter-species transmission is facilitated by anthropogenic factors such as encroachment and destruction of wilderness areas, wildlife trafficking and climate change. South Africa was selected for a 'One Health' study to identify research priorities for control of zoonoses due to its complex disease burden and an overstretched health system.

Methods

A multidisciplinary group of 18 experts identified priority zoonotic diseases, knowledge gaps and proposed research priorities for the next 5 y. Each priority was scored using predefined criteria by another group of five experts and then weighted by a reference group (n=28) and the 18 experts.

Results

Seventeen diseases were mentioned with the top five being rabies (14/18), TB (13/18), brucellosis (11/18), Rift Valley fever (9/11) and cysticercosis (6/18). In total, 97 specific research priorities were listed, with the majority on basic epidemiological research (n=57), such as measuring the burden of various zoonoses (n=24), followed by 20 on development of new interventions. The highest research priority score was for improving existing interventions (0.77/1.0), followed by health policy and systems research (0.72/1.0).

Conclusion

Future zoonotic research should improve understanding of zoonotic burden and risk factors and new interventions in public health. People with limited rural services, immunocompromised, in informal settlements and high-risk occupations, should be the highest research priority.

SUBMITTER: Simpson G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8083559 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:'Universal' access to antiretroviral treatment (ART) has become the global standard for treating people living with HIV and achieving epidemic control; yet, findings from numerous 'test and treat' trials and implementation studies in sub-Saharan Africa suggest that bringing 'universal' access to ART to scale is more complex than anticipated. Using South Africa as a case example, we describe the research priorities and foci in the literature on expanded ART access. To do so, we adapted Arksey and O'Malley's six-stage scoping review framework to describe the peer-reviewed literature and opinion pieces on expanding access to ART in South Africa between 2000 and 2017. Data collection included systematic searches of two databases and hand-searching of a sub-sample of reference lists. We used an adapted socio-ecological thematic framework to categorize data according to where it located the challenges and opportunities of expanded ART eligibility: individual/client, health worker-client relationship, clinic/community context, health systems infrastructure and/or policy context. We included 194 research articles and 23 opinion pieces, of 1512 identified, addressing expanded ART access in South Africa. The peer-reviewed literature focused on the individual and health systems infrastructure; opinion pieces focused on changing roles of individuals, communities and health services implementers. We contextualized our findings through a consultative process with a group of researchers, HIV clinicians and programme managers to consider critical knowledge gaps. Unlike the published literature, the consultative process offered particular insights into the importance of researching and intervening in the relational aspects of HIV service delivery as South Africa's HIV programme expands. An overwhelming focus on individual and health systems infrastructure factors in the published literature on expanded ART access in South Africa may skew understanding of HIV programme shortfalls away from the relational aspects of HIV services delivery and delay progress with finding ways to leverage non-medical modalities for achieving HIV epidemic control.

Project description:BackgroundOne Health is particularly relevant to the Horn of Africa where many people's livelihoods are highly dependent on livestock and their shared environment. In this context, zoonoses may have a dramatic impact on both human and animal health, but also on country economies. This scoping review aimed to characterise and evaluate the nature of zoonotic disease research in the Horn region. Specifically, it addressed the following questions: (i) what specific zoonotic diseases have been prioritised for research, (ii) what data have been reported (human, animal or environment), (iii) what methods have been applied, and (iv) who has been doing the research?Methodology/principal findingsWe used keyword combinations to search online databases for peer-reviewed papers and theses. Screening and data extraction (disease, country, domain and method) was performed using DistillerSR. A total of 2055 studies focusing on seven countries and over 60 zoonoses were included. Brucellosis attracted the highest attention in terms of research while anthrax, Q fever and leptospirosis have been comparatively under-studied. Research efforts did not always align with zoonoses priorities identified at national levels. Despite zoonoses being a clear target for 'One Health' research, a very limited proportion of studies report data on the three domains of human, animal and environment. Descriptive and observational epidemiological studies were dominant and only a low proportion of publications were multidisciplinary. Finally, we found that a minority of international collaborations were between Global South countries with a high proportion of authors having affiliations from outside the Horn of Africa.Conclusions/significanceThere is a growing interest in zoonoses research in the Horn of Africa. Recommendations arising from this scoping review include: (i) ensuring zoonoses research aligns with national and global research agendas; (ii) encouraging researchers to adopt a holistic, transdisciplinary One Health approach following high quality reporting standards (COHERE, PRISMA, etc.); and (iii) empowering local researchers supported by regional and international partnerships to engage in zoonoses research.

Project description:Background: Emerging data from Africa indicates remarkably low numbers of reported COVID-19 deaths despite high levels of disease transmission. However, evolution of these trends as the pandemic progresses remains unknown. More certain are the devastating long-term impacts of the pandemic on health and development evident globally. Research tailored to the unique needs of African countries is crucial. UKCDR and GloPID-R have launched a tracker of funded COVID-19 projects mapped to the WHO research priorities and research priorities of Africa and less-resourced countries and published a baseline analysis of a living systematic review (LSR) of these projects. Methods: In-depth analyses of the baseline LSR for COVID-19 funded research projects in Africa (as of 15th July 2020) to determine the funding landscape and alignment of the projects to research priorities of relevance to Africa. Results: The limited COVID-19 related research across Africa appears to be supported mainly by international funding, especially from Europe, although with notably limited funding from United States-based funders. At the time of this analysis no research projects funded by an African-based funder were identified in the tracker although there are several active funding calls geared at research in Africa and there may be funding data that has not been made publicly available. Many projects mapped to the WHO research priorities and five particular gaps in research funding were identified, namely: investigating the role of children in COVID-19 transmission; effective modes of community engagement; health systems research; communication of uncertainties surrounding mother-to-child transmission of COVID-19; and identifying ways to promote international cooperation. Capacity strengthening was identified as a dominant theme in funded research project plans. Conclusions: We found significantly lower funding investments in COVID-19 research in Africa compared to high-income countries, seven months into the pandemic, indicating a paucity of research targeting the research priorities of relevance to Africa.

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.