4.1 Article

The unacknowledged impact of chronic schistosomiasis

Journal

CHRONIC ILLNESS
Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 65-79

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1742395307084407

Keywords

Burden of illness; Developmental disabilities; Parasitic diseases; Quality-of-life; Schistosomiasis

Funding

  1. US National Institutes of Health [AI45473, TW/ES01543]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To summarize new knowledge on the range of disease due to chronic schistosomiasis and examine the debilitating burden of both light and heavy infection; to outline goals of disease prevention, including current age-targeted strategies and more extended programmes aimed at preventing transmission. Methods: A systematic search of 2004-2007 papers via PUBMED and related databases using 'schistosom' and disability-or treatment-related subject headings. Reports were independently reviewed for inclusion. Results: Sixty-eight papers met review objectives. These suggest new evidence for a causative link between schistosome infection, antiparasite inflammation, and risk for anaemia, growth stunting and undernutrition in affected populations, as well as exacerbation of co-infections and impairment of cognitive development and work capacity. Formal quality-of-life assessment defines a significant 9.5-24% disability with the most aggressive schistosome species, Schistosoma japonicum. Discussion: Schistosomiasis represents a serious but under-recognized disease burden for many developing countries. Infection (and not intensity of infection) should be considered the defining feature of morbidity formation. Links between infection and long-term disabilities reduce the chances of combating rural poverty. Changes in our appreciation of schistosomiasis-related disease burden means it is no longer appropriate to leave infected persons untreated, and newer approaches to control should focus on preventing transmission.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available