Search

Background: Zoonotic diseases pose a significant threat to human, animal, and environmental health. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has endured a significant burden of zoonotic disease impacts. To address zoonotic disease threats in ECOWAS, a One Health Zoonotic Disease Prioritization (OHZDP) was conducted over five days in December 2018 to prioritize zoonotic diseases of greatest regional concern and develop next steps for addressing these priority zoonoses through a regional, multisectoral, One Health approach., Methods: The OHZDP Process uses a mixed methods prioritization process developed by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. During the OHZDP workshop, representatives from human, animal, and environmental health ministries from all 15 ECOWAS Member States used a transparent and equal process to prioritize endemic and emerging zoonotic diseases of greatest regional concern that should be jointly addressed by One Health ministries and other partners. After the priority zoonotic diseases were identified, participants discussed recommendations and further regional actions to address the priority zoonoses and advance One Health in the region., Results: ECOWAS Member States agreed upon a list of seven priority zoonotic diseases for the region - Anthrax, Rabies, Ebola and other viral hemorrhagic fevers (for example, Marburg fever, Lassa fever, Rift Valley fever, Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic fever), zoonotic influenzas, zoonotic tuberculosis, Trypanosomiasis, and Yellow fever. Participants developed recommendations and further regional actions that could be taken, using a One Health approach to address the priority zoonotic diseases in thematic areas including One Health collaboration and coordination, surveillance and laboratory, response and preparedness, prevention and control, workforce development, and research., Conclusions: ECOWAS was the first region to use the OHZDP Process to prioritize zoonotic disease of greatest concern. With identified priority zoonotic diseases for the region, ECOWAS Member States can collaborate more effectively to address zoonotic diseases threats across the region using a One Health approach. Strengthening national and regional level multisectoral, One Health Coordination Mechanisms will allow ECOWAS Member States to advance One Health and have the biggest impact on improving health outcomes for both people and animals living in a shared environment., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Based on recommendations from two consultative meetings held in Dakar, Senegal (2016) and Abuja, Nigeria (2017) the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) implemented a Regional One Health Coordination Mechanism (R-OHCM). This study analyzed the process, challenges and gaps in operationalizing the R-OHCM in West Africa. We utilized a scoping review to assess five dimensions of the operation of an R-OHCM based on political commitment, institutional structure, management and coordination capacity, joint planning and implementation, as well as technical and financial resources. Information was gathered through a desk review, interview of key informants, and the viewpoints of relevant stakeholders from ECOWAS region during a regional One Health technical meeting in Lomé, Togo in October 2019. It was found that political commitment at regional meetings and the countries adoption of regional frameworks were key strengths of the R-OHCM, although there are continued challenges with commitment, sustainability, and variability of awareness about One Health approach. ECOWAS formulated regional strategic documents and operationalized the One Health secretariat for strengthening coordination. The R-OHCM has technical working groups however, there is need for engagement of more specialized workforce and a harmonized reporting structure. Furthermore, inadequate focus on operational research, and weak national OHCM are identified as main gaps. Finally, the support of technical and financial partners will help to address the lack of funding which limits the implementation of the R-OHCM. West Africa has demonstrated profound effort in adopting the One Health approach at regional level but is presently deterred by challenges such as limited skilled One Health workforce, especially in the animal and environmental health sectors, and access to quality of One Health surveillance., (© 2021 West African Health Organisation.)

CDC has updated its interim guidance for persons with possible Zika virus exposure who are planning to conceive (1) and interim guidance to prevent transmission of Zika virus through sexual contact (2), now combined into a single document. Guidance for care for pregnant women with possible Zika virus exposure was previously published (3). Possible Zika virus exposure is defined as travel to or residence in an area of active Zika virus transmission (http://www.cdc.gov/zika/geo/index.html), or sex* without a condom † with a partner who traveled to or lived in an area of active transmission. Based on new though limited data, CDC now recommends that all men with possible Zika virus exposure who are considering attempting conception with their partner, regardless of symptom status, § wait to conceive until at least 6 months after symptom onset (if symptomatic) or last possible Zika virus exposure (if asymptomatic). Recommendations for women planning to conceive remain unchanged: women with possible Zika virus exposure are recommended to wait to conceive until at least 8 weeks after symptom onset (if symptomatic) or last possible Zika virus exposure (if asymptomatic). Couples with possible Zika virus exposure, who are not pregnant and do not plan to become pregnant, who want to minimize their risk for sexual transmission of Zika virus should use a condom or abstain from sex for the same periods for men and women described above. Women of reproductive age who have had or anticipate future Zika virus exposure who do not want to become pregnant should use the most effective contraceptive method that can be used correctly and consistently. These recommendations will be further updated when additional data become available.

At the end of 2010, 1.5% of inmates in state prisons were known to be HIV positive, a prevalence rate approximately 3 times that of the general population of the United States. Increased HIV testing in correctional settings has the potential to identify previously undiagnosed infections. This article offers a systematic review and analysis of state laws governing HIV testing in correctional settings, including HIV testing upon admission or prior to release, HIV testing for individuals charged with or convicted of specific crimes, and HIV testing of inmates in situations where contact between the inmate and law enforcement or corrections personnel may have led to an exposure. The implications of these laws for facilitating access to HIV testing within correctional settings are discussed., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Objectives: We examined the relationships of the state-level alcohol policy environment and policy subgroups with individual-level binge drinking measures., Methods: We used generalized estimating equations regression models to relate the alcohol policy environment based on data from 29 policies in US states from 2004 to 2009 to 3 binge drinking measures in adults from the 2005 to 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys., Results: A 10 percentage point higher alcohol policy environment score, which reflected increased policy effectiveness and implementation, was associated with an 8% lower adjusted odds of binge drinking and binge drinking 5 or more times, and a 10% lower adjusted odds of consuming 10 or more drinks. Policies that targeted the general population rather than the underage population, alcohol consumption rather than impaired driving, and raising the price or reducing the availability of alcohol had the strongest independent associations with reduced binge drinking. Alcohol taxes and outlet density accounted for approximately half of the effect magnitude observed for all policies., Conclusions: A small number of policies that raised alcohol prices and reduced its availability appeared to affect binge drinking.

Background: Of outcomes related to excessive drinking, binge drinking accounts for approximately half of alcohol-attributable deaths, two thirds of years of potential life lost, and three fourths of economic costs. The extent to which the alcohol policy environment accounts for differences in binge drinking in U.S. states is unknown., Purpose: The goal of the study was to describe the development of an Alcohol Policy Scale (APS) designed to measure the aggregate state-level alcohol policy environment in the U.S. and assess the relationship of APS scores to state-level adult binge drinking prevalence in U.S. states., Methods: Policy efficacy and implementation ratings were developed with assistance from a panel of policy experts. Data on 29 policies in 50 states and Washington DC from 2000-2010 were collected from multiple sources and analyzed between January 2012 and January 2013. Five methods of aggregating policy data to calculate APS scores were explored; all but one was weighted for relative policy efficacy and/or implementation. Adult (aged ≥18 years) binge drinking prevalence data from 2001-2010 was obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys. APS scores from a particular state-year were used to predict binge drinking prevalence during the following year., Results: All methods of calculating APS scores were significantly correlated (r >0.50), and all APS scores were significantly inversely associated with adult binge drinking prevalence. Introducing efficacy and implementation ratings optimized goodness of fit in statistical models (e.g., unadjusted beta=-3.90, p<0.0001, R(2)=0.31)., Conclusions: The composite measure(s) of the alcohol policy environment have internal and construct validity. Higher APS scores (representing stronger policy environments) were associated with less adult binge drinking and accounted for a substantial proportion of the state-level variation in binge drinking among U.S. states., (© 2013 American Journal of Preventive Medicine Published by American Journal of Preventive Medicine All rights reserved.)