0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Occupational exposure to malaria, leishmaniasis and arbovirus vectors in endemic regions: A systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Vector-borne diseases, including dengue, leishmaniasis and malaria, may be more common among individuals whose occupations or behaviours bring them into frequent contact with these disease vectors outside of their homes. A systematic review was conducted to ascertain at-risk occupations and situations that put individuals at increased risk of exposure to these disease vectors in endemic regions and identify the most suitable interventions for each exposure. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines on articles published between 1945 and October 2021, searched in 16 online databases. The primary outcome was incidence or prevalence of dengue, leishmaniasis or malaria. The review excluded ecological and qualitative studies, abstracts only, letters, commentaries, reviews, and studies of laboratory-acquired infections. Studies were appraised, data extracted, and a descriptive analysis conducted. Bite interventions for each risk group were assessed. A total of 1170 articles were screened and 99 included. Malaria, leishmaniasis and dengue were presented in 47, 41 and 24 articles, respectively; some articles presented multiple conditions. The most represented populations were soldiers, 38% (43 of 112 studies); refugees and travellers, 15% (17) each; migrant workers, 12.5% (14); miners, 9% (10); farmers, 5% (6); rubber tappers and missionaries, 1.8% (2) each; and forest workers, 0.9% (1). Risk of exposure was categorised into round-the-clock or specific times of day/night dependent on occupation. Exposure to these vectors presents a critical and understudied concern for outdoor workers and mobile populations. When devising interventions to provide round-the-clock vector bite protection, two populations are considered. First, mobile populations, characterized by their high mobility, may find potential benefits in insecticide-treated clothing, though more research and optimization are essential. Treated clothing offers personal vector protection and holds promise for economically disadvantaged individuals, especially when enabling them to self-treat their clothing to repel vectors. Secondly, semi-permanent and permanent settlement populations can receive a combination of interventions that offer both personal and community protection, including spatial repellents, suitable for extended stays. Existing research is heavily biased towards tourism and the military, diverting attention and resources from vulnerable populations where these interventions are most required like refugee populations as well as those residing in sub-Saharan Africa.

          Graphical abstract

          Highlights

          • A review of the evidence on optimal interventions targeting outdoor-biting vectors of dengue, leishmaniasis, and malaria.

          • Insecticide-treated clothing (ITC) provides personal protection against vector bites, akin to a treated net.

          • ITC can help outdoor occupations, tourism, refugee situations, and armed combat.

          • Combined with other interventions, ITC can provide 24-h protection against vector bites for people working outdoors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references386

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

          The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

            Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Curr Res Parasitol Vector Borne Dis
                Curr Res Parasitol Vector Borne Dis
                Current Research in Parasitology & Vector-borne Diseases
                Elsevier
                2667-114X
                01 June 2024
                2024
                01 June 2024
                : 6
                : 100185
                Affiliations
                [a ]Vector Control Product Testing Unit, Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Tanzania
                [b ]Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Kreuzstrasse 2, 4123, Allschwil, Switzerland
                [c ]University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, 4003, Basel, Switzerland
                [d ]Department of Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
                [e ]Academy of Public Health Entomology, Udaipur, 313 002, India
                [f ]The Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology (NM-AIST), P.O. Box 447, Tengeru, Arusha, Tanzania
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Vector Control Product Testing Unit, Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Tanzania. dmsellemu@ 123456ihi.or.tz
                Article
                S2667-114X(24)00016-5 100185
                10.1016/j.crpvbd.2024.100185
                11252614
                39027087
                6cd528c7-bd0e-4e0f-b309-0b9ac82c92a5
                © 2024 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

                History
                : 30 January 2024
                : 26 April 2024
                : 1 June 2024
                Categories
                Review Article

                dengue,leishmaniasis,malaria,insecticide-treated clothing,occupation,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article