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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Gebre, Teshome
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