Dataset Information

One hundred years of zoonoses research in the Horn of Africa: A scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

One 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 findings

We 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/significance

There 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.

SUBMITTER: Cavalerie L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8318308 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEmergency medicine (EM) throughout Africa exists in various stages of development. The number and types of scientific EM literature can serve as a proxy indicator of EM regional development and activity. The goal of this scoping review is a preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available African EM literature published over 15 years.MethodsWe searched five indexed international databases as well as non-indexed grey literature from 1999-2014 using key search terms including "Africa", "emergency medicine", "emergency medical services", and "disaster." Two trained physician reviewers independently assessed whether each article met one or more of five inclusion criteria, and discordant results were adjudicated by a senior reviewer. Articles were categorised by subject and country of origin. Publication number per country was normalised by 1,000,000 population.ResultsOf 6091 identified articles, 633 (10.4%) were included. African publications increased 10-fold from 1999 to 2013 (9 to 94 articles, respectively). Western Africa had the highest number (212, 33.5%) per region. South Africa had the largest number of articles per country (171, 27.0%) followed by Nigeria, Kenya, and Ghana. 537 (84.8%) articles pertained to facility-based EM, 188 (29.7%) to out-of-hospital emergency medicine, and 109 (17.2%) to disaster medicine. Predominant content areas were epidemiology (374, 59.1%), EM systems (321, 50.7%) and clinical care (262, 41.4%). The most common study design was observational (479, 75.7%), with only 28 (4.4%) interventional studies. All-comers (382, 59.9%) and children (91, 14.1%) were the most commonly studied patient populations. Undifferentiated (313, 49.4%) and traumatic (180, 28.4%) complaints were most common.ConclusionOur review revealed a considerable increase in the growth of African EM literature from 1999 to 2014. Overwhelmingly, articles were observational, studied all-comers, and focused on undifferentiated complaints. The articles discovered in this scoping review are reflective of the relatively immature and growing state of African EM.

Project description:IntroductionA 2011 paper proposed a working taxonomy of implementation outcomes, their conceptual distinctions and a two-pronged research agenda on their role in implementation success. Since then, over 1100 papers citing the manuscript have been published. Our goal is to compare the field's progress to the originally proposed research agenda, and outline recommendations for the next 10 years. To accomplish this, we are conducting the proposed scoping review.Methods and analysisOur approach is informed by Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews. We will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. We first aim to assess the degree to which each implementation outcome has been investigated in the literature, including healthcare settings, clinical populations and innovations represented. We next aim to describe the relationship between implementation strategies and outcomes. Our last aim is to identify studies that empirically assess relationships among implementation and/or service and client outcomes. We will use a forward citation tracing approach to identify all literature that cited the 2011 paper in the Web of Science (WOS) and will supplement this with citation alerts sent to the second author for a 6-month period coinciding with the WOS citation search. Our review will focus on empirical studies that are designed to assess at least one of the identified implementation outcomes in the 2011 taxonomy and are published in peer-reviewed journals. We will generate descriptive statistics from extracted data and organise results by these research aims.Ethics and disseminationNo human research participants will be involved in this review. We plan to share findings through a variety of means including peer-reviewed journal publications, national conference presentations, invited workshops and webinars, email listservs affiliated with our institutions and professional associations, and academic social media.

Project description:BackgroundImplementation research has emerged as part of evidence-based decision-making efforts to plug current gaps in the translation of research evidence into health policy and practice. While there has been a growing number of initiatives promoting the uptake of implementation research in Africa, its role and effectiveness remain unclear, particularly in the context of universal health coverage (UHC). Hence, this scoping review aimed to identify and characterise the use of implementation research initiatives for assessing UHC-related interventions or programmes in Africa.MethodsThe review protocol was developed based on the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, as enhanced by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched. The search also included a hand search of relevant grey literature and reference lists. Literature sources involving the application of implementation research in the context of UHC in Africa were eligible for inclusion.ResultsThe database search yielded 2153 records. We identified 12 additional records from hand search of reference lists. After the removal of duplicates, we had 2051 unique records, of which 26 studies were included in the review. Implementation research was used within ten distinct UHC-related contexts, including HIV; maternal and child health; voluntary male medical circumcision; healthcare financing; immunisation; healthcare data quality; malaria diagnosis; primary healthcare quality improvement; surgery and typhoid fever control. The consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) was the most frequently used framework. Qualitative and mixed-methods study designs were the commonest methods used. Implementation research was mostly used to guide post-implementation evaluation of health programmes and the contextualisation of findings to improve future implementation outcomes. The most commonly reported contextual facilitators were political support, funding, sustained collaboration and effective programme leadership. Reported barriers included inadequate human and other resources; lack of incentives; perception of implementation as additional work burden; and socio-cultural barriers.ConclusionsThis review demonstrates that implementation research can be used to achieve UHC-related outcomes in Africa. It has identified important facilitators and barriers to the use of implementation research for promoting UHC in the region.