Cargando…
Rethinking disease eradication: putting countries first
There have been various infectious disease eradication programs implemented in various parts of the world with varying degrees of success since the early 1900s. Of all those programs, the one that achieved monumental success was the Smallpox Eradication Program (SEP). Most of the global health leade...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8079318/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33693720 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihab011 |
_version_ | 1783685202837504000 |
---|---|
author | Gebre, Teshome |
author_facet | Gebre, Teshome |
author_sort | Gebre, Teshome |
collection | PubMed |
description | There have been various infectious disease eradication programs implemented in various parts of the world with varying degrees of success since the early 1900s. Of all those programs, the one that achieved monumental success was the Smallpox Eradication Program (SEP). Most of the global health leaders and authorities that came up with the new idea of disease eradication in the 1980s tried to design and shape the new programs based on their experience in the SEP. The SEP had a very effective tool, vaccine, that did not require a cold chain system, and a relatively simple way of administration. The total cost of the eradication program was about US$300 million and the entire campaign took about 10 y. However, the Guinea worm and polio eradication programs that followed in the footsteps of SEP attained varying levels of success, consuming a huge amount of resources and taking a much longer time (>30 y each). This paper reviews the factors that played major roles in hindering the attainment of eradication goals and outlines possible recommendations for the way forward. Among other things, this paper strongly emphasizes that endemic countries should take the lead in all matters pertaining to making decisions for disease elimination and/or eradication initiatives and that ‘elimination as a public health problem’ is the preferred option rather than going for complete eradication at the expense of other health programs and thereby contributing to weakening of already fragile health systems, mainly in Africa. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8079318 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80793182021-05-03 Rethinking disease eradication: putting countries first Gebre, Teshome Int Health Review Article There have been various infectious disease eradication programs implemented in various parts of the world with varying degrees of success since the early 1900s. Of all those programs, the one that achieved monumental success was the Smallpox Eradication Program (SEP). Most of the global health leaders and authorities that came up with the new idea of disease eradication in the 1980s tried to design and shape the new programs based on their experience in the SEP. The SEP had a very effective tool, vaccine, that did not require a cold chain system, and a relatively simple way of administration. The total cost of the eradication program was about US$300 million and the entire campaign took about 10 y. However, the Guinea worm and polio eradication programs that followed in the footsteps of SEP attained varying levels of success, consuming a huge amount of resources and taking a much longer time (>30 y each). This paper reviews the factors that played major roles in hindering the attainment of eradication goals and outlines possible recommendations for the way forward. Among other things, this paper strongly emphasizes that endemic countries should take the lead in all matters pertaining to making decisions for disease elimination and/or eradication initiatives and that ‘elimination as a public health problem’ is the preferred option rather than going for complete eradication at the expense of other health programs and thereby contributing to weakening of already fragile health systems, mainly in Africa. Oxford University Press 2021-03-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8079318/ /pubmed/33693720 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihab011 Text en © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Review Article Gebre, Teshome Rethinking disease eradication: putting countries first |
title | Rethinking disease eradication: putting countries first |
title_full | Rethinking disease eradication: putting countries first |
title_fullStr | Rethinking disease eradication: putting countries first |
title_full_unstemmed | Rethinking disease eradication: putting countries first |
title_short | Rethinking disease eradication: putting countries first |
title_sort | rethinking disease eradication: putting countries first |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8079318/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33693720 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihab011 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gebreteshome rethinkingdiseaseeradicationputtingcountriesfirst |