Joint human and animal vaccination strategies to reach mobile pastoralists and their livestock in Africa: A scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Africa’s pastoralist population is approximately 268 million, which is over a quarter of the continent’s population. They occupy more than 40% of Africa’s land, though density varies by country. Mobile pastoralists are often underreported in national censuses due to political marginalisation and difficulties in counting these groups. Vaccination services delivered through fixed facilities do not adequately reach mobile pastoralists, which impacts vaccination coverage and health outcomes for these mobile groups who are economically and culturally connected to their livestock. This scoping review explored literature on joint human-animal vaccination strategies as a One Health approach to improve vaccination coverage among these mobile pastoralists and their animals. Methods A systematic search was performed across 12 databases, following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and adhering to the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. Results Of 2469 records screened for eligibility, 17 articles were included in a full-text assessment, and five met the eligibility criteria. The included studies were published between 2004 and 2016. Three studies were conducted in Chad and one each in Nigeria and Somalia. The implementation of the vaccination campaigns was organised in three phases: planning, implementation, and post-vaccination. Key enabling factors were identified in these joint campaigns, including the use of a participatory approach throughout both the planning and implementation phases, with a strong emphasis on intersectoral collaboration and active community engagement in all activities. Interventions were adapted during the campaigns to ensure they were contextually acceptable. The joint human and animal vaccination campaigns increased vaccination coverage among mobile pastoralists compared to baseline levels by targeting children, women of reproductive age, and their animals. Nevertheless, the campaigns highlighted human vaccination results but paid little attention to animal populations, contradicting the values of mobile pastoralists. Conclusions This review offers valuable insights into the design of joint vaccination campaigns tailored for mobile pastoralists and their livestock. Whilst joint vaccination campaigns appear to improve human vaccine uptake, more information is needed to evaluate the potential benefits that could be gained by attention to animal vaccination and improved animal health outcomes, which could further improve non-vaccine-related human health outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,052 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».