For specific advice and supplies for your destination, call us at or book an appointment online and speak to a travel health nurse.
Did this article help you understand the differences between disease control, elimination and eradication? Did you know only one disease has been eradicated so far?
Let us know in the comments below, or via Facebook and Twitter. Written for Passport Health by Katherine Meikle. Katherine is a research writer and proud first-generation British-American living in Florida, where she was born and raised. She has a passion for travel and a love of writing, which go hand-in-hand.
Barthelemy Saint Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia Saint Martin St. Pierre-et-Miquelon St. Canada Locations. Mexico Locations. United States. And what do the phrases actually mean?
But, one term applies at a local level while the other is on a global scale: Elimination If a disease is eliminated, its transmission is no longer active in a certain area, such as a country.
If asked, the WHO can make an official ruling on whether a nation is free of the disease. Smallpox was declared eradicated in Can you tell the difference between eradication and elimination of a disease? Select the two correct definitions for eradication and elimination of a disease:. Eradication Eradication The complete and permanent worldwide reduction to zero new cases of an infectious disease through deliberate efforts; no further control measures are required. Department of Health and Human Services.
Introduction Elimination and eradication of human disease have been the subject of numerous conferences, symposia, workshops, planning sessions, and public health initiatives for more than a century. Definitions Eradication has been defined in various ways -- as extinction of the disease pathogen 3 , as elimination of the occurrence of a given disease, even in the absence of all preventive measures 4 , as control of an infection to the point at which transmission ceased within a specified area 5 , and as reduction of the worldwide incidence of a disease to zero as a result of deliberate efforts, obviating the necessity for further control measures 1.
Control: The reduction of disease incidence, prevalence, morbidity or mortality to a locally acceptable level as a result of deliberate efforts; continued intervention measures are required to maintain the reduction. Example: diarrhoeal diseases. Elimination of disease: Reduction to zero of the incidence of a specified disease in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued intervention measures are required.
Example: neonatal tetanus. Elimination of infections: Reduction to zero of the incidence of infection caused by a specific agent in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued measures to prevent re-establishment of transmission are required.
Example: measles, poliomyelitis. Eradication: Permanent reduction to zero of the worldwide incidence of infection caused by a specific agent as a result of deliberate efforts; intervention measures are no longer needed. Example: smallpox. Extinction: The specific infectious agent no longer exists in nature or in the laboratory. Example: none. Principal Indicators of Eradicability In theory if the right tools were available, all infectious diseases would be eradicable.
Economic Considerations Meeting the biological criteria is only one step in the decision to embark upon an elimination or eradication programme. Social and Political Criteria A set of social and political criteria was identified by Workshop participants. These and other related factors are summarized as follows: The success of a disease eradication initiative, like any public health programme, is largely dependent on the level of societal and political commitment to it from the beginning to the end.
Considering the potentially enormous cost of failure, any proposal for eradication should be given intense scrutiny. The disease under consideration for eradication must be of recognized public health importance, with broad international appeal, and be perceived as a worthy goal by all levels of society.
There must be specific reasons for eradication. The demands for sustained support, high quality performance, and perseverance in an eradication programme increase the risks of failure, with a consequent significant loss of credibility, resources, and health workers' self-confidence. A technically feasible intervention and eradication strategy must be identified, field-tested in a defined geographical area, and found effective.
The accumulation of success in individual countries or within a region generates the momentum needed for international support. Consensus on the priority and justification for the disease must be developed by technical experts, the decision-makers, and the scientific community.
Political commitment must be gained at the highest levels, following informed discussion at regional and local levels. A clear commitment of resources from international sources is essential from the start.
A resolution by the World Health Assembly is a vital booster to the success of any eradication programme. An advocacy plan must be prepared and ready for full implementation at global, regional, and national levels.
Eradication requires an effective alliance with all potential collaborators and partners. Finally -- a recurring theme -- the eradication programme must address the issues of equity and be supportive of broader goals that have a positive impact on the health infrastructure to provide a legacy in addition to eradication of the disease.
Disease eradication programmes are conceptually simple, focusing on one clear and unequivocal outcome. At the same time, however, their implementation is extraordinarily difficult because of the unique global and time-driven operational challenges.
The limitations, potential risks, and points of caution for eradication programmes include higher short-term costs, increased risk of failure and the consequences of failure, an inescapable sense of urgency, and diversion of attention and resources from equally or more important health problems that are not eradicable, or even others that may be eradicable.
Care must be taken that eradication efforts do not detract or undermine the development of the general health infrastructure. Other limitations are the high vulnerability of eradication programmes to interruption by war and other civil disturbances; the potential that programmes will not address national priorities in all countries, and that some countries will not follow the eradication strategy; the perception of programmes as "donor driven"; placement of excessive, counterproductive pressures and demands upon health workers and others; and the requirement of special attention for countries with inadequate resources and or weak health infrastructure including hit-and-run strategies.
The favourable attributes and potential benefits of eradication programmes are a well-defined scope with a clear objective and endpoint, and the duration is limited.
Successful eradication programmes produce sustainable improvement in health and provide a high benefit-cost ratio. Eradication programmes are attractive to potential funding sources because they establish high standards of performance for surveillance, logistics, and administrative support; develop well-trained and highly motivated health staff; assist in the development of health services infrastructure including, for example, mobilization of endemic communities; and provide equity in coverage for all affected areas, including urban, rural, and even remote rural areas.
They also offer opportunities for other health benefits e.
0コメント