3.8 Article

SISS-Geo: Leveraging Citizen Science to Monitor Wildlife Health Risks in Brazil

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEALTHCARE INFORMATICS RESEARCH
Volume 3, Issue 4, Pages 414-440

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s41666-019-00055-2

Keywords

Wildlife health; Citizen science; Information system

Funding

  1. Global Environment Facility (GEF) among World Bank
  2. Caixa Economica Federal
  3. Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (Funbio)
  4. Fiocruz

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The well-being of human and wildlife health involves many challenges, such as monitoring the movement of pathogens; expanding health surveillance; collecting data and extracting information to identify and predict risks; integrating specialists from different areas to handle data, species and distinct social and environmental contexts; and the commitment to bringing relevant information to society. In Brazil, there is still the difficulty of building a system that is not impaired by its large territorial extension and its poorly integrated sectoral policies. The Brazilian Wildlife Health Information System, SISS-Geo (SISS-Geo is the abbreviation of Sistema de Informacao em Saude Silvestre Georreferenciado (which translates to Georeferenced Wildlife Health Information System) and can be accessed at or (in Portuguese)), is a platform for collaborative monitoring that intends to overcome the challenges in wildlife health. It aims at the integration and participation of various segments of society, encompassing the registration of animals occurrences by citizen scientists; the reliable diagnosis of pathogens from the laboratory and expert networks; and computational and mathematical challenges in analytical and predictive systems, model interpretation, data integration and visualization, and geographic information systems. It has been successfully applied to support decision-making on recent wildlife health events, such as a Yellow Fever epizootic.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available