4.1 Review

The time is now: a call for action to translate recent momentum on tackling tropical snakebite into sustained benefit for victims

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/trstmh/try134

关键词

Tropical snakebite; World Health Organization; WHO Snakebite Envenoming Working Group

资金

  1. MRC [MR/L01839X/1, MC_PC_17167, MC_PC_15040] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [MR/L01839X/1, MC_PC_17167, MC_PC_15040] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Like the other WHO-listed Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs), snakebite primarily affects rural, impoverished tropical communities that lack adequate health resources. The annual 138 000 deaths and 400 000 disabilities suffered by these subsistence farming communities means that snakebite is an additional cause and consequence of tropical poverty. Unlike most of the NTDs, however, snakebite is a medical emergency, and requires rapid treatment in a hospital equipped with effective antivenom, beds and appropriately trained staff. The lack of such facilities in the remote areas most affected by snakebite, and the high treatment costs, explains why most victims, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, consult traditional healers rather than seek hospital care. Whilst affordable, there is no evidence that traditional treatments are effective. The number of snakebite victims that die, unregistered, in the community is threefold higher than hospital-recorded deaths. After decades of inertia, WHO benefitted from advocacy interventions and the support of key agencies, including Medecins Sans Frontieres, the Wellcome Trust, the Kofi Annan Foundation and the Global Snakebite Initiative, to recently institute transformative actions for reducing the public health burden of tropical snakebite. It is imperative that WHO and the other stakeholders now gain the support and investment of governments, research funders and donor agencies to ensure that this recent momentum for change is translated into sustained benefit to snakebite victims.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据