↓ Skip to main content

Building the road to a regional zoonoses strategy: A survey of zoonoses programmes in the Americas

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
218 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Building the road to a regional zoonoses strategy: A survey of zoonoses programmes in the Americas
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0174175
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In recent years, global public health security has been threatened by zoonotic disease emergence as exemplified by outbreaks of H5N1 and H1N1 influenza, SARS, and most recently Ebola and Zika. Additionally, endemic zoonoses, such as rabies, burden countries year after year, placing demands on limited finances and personnel. To survey the baseline status of the emerging and endemic zoonoses programmes of the Latin American and the Caribbean (LAC) countries, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) conducted a survey of priority emerging and endemic zoonoses, countries´ prioritization criteria and methodologies, and suggestions to strengthen countries capacities and regional approaches to zoonoses control. A fillable online questionnaire was sent to the zoonoses programme managers of the Ministries of Health (MOH) and Ministries of Agriculture (MAg) of 33 LAC countries from January to April of 2015. The questionnaire comprised 36 single, multiple choice and open-ended questions to inform the objectives of the survey. A descriptive exploratory analysis was completed. Fifty-four ministries (26 MOH, 25 MAg, and 3 combined responses) in 31 LAC countries responded to the survey. Within the ministries, 22 (85%) MOH, 5 (20%) MAg, and 2 (67%) combined entities indicated they had specialized zoonoses units. For endemic zoonoses, 32 of 54 ministries responded that they conduct formal prioritization exercises, most of them annually (69%). The three priority endemic zoonoses for the MOHs were leptospirosis, rabies, and brucellosis while the three priorities for the MAgs were brucellosis, rabies, and tuberculosis. Diagnosis for rabies and leptospirosis were cited as the capacities most in need of development. The most needed cross-cutting capacity was coordination between stakeholders. For emerging zoonoses, 28 ministries performed formal prioritization exercises. The top prioritization criteria were probability of introduction into the country and impact. The three priority emerging zoonoses for the MOHs were Ebola viral disease, avian influenza, and Chikungunya while for the MAgs were avian influenza, bovine spongiform encephalopathy and West Nile virus disease. Surveillance for avian influenza and Ebola, and diagnosis for BSE were quoted as the capacities most needed. For all zoonoses, the majority of respondents (69%) ranked their relationship with the other Ministry as productive or very productive, and 31% minimally productive. Many countries requested a formal regional network, better regional communication and collaboration, and integrated surveillance. The survey is the first comprehensive effort to date to inform the status of zoonoses programmes in LAC. The information collected here will be used to develop a regional strategy for zoonoses (both endemic and emerging), increase efforts, advocacy, and promote prompt identification and management of EIDs and improvement of endemic programmes.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 218 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 217 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 14%
Researcher 31 14%
Student > Bachelor 18 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 6%
Other 12 6%
Other 41 19%
Unknown 71 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 11%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 24 11%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 3%
Other 40 18%
Unknown 81 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2017.
All research outputs
#8,960,372
of 29,967,164 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#78,378
of 207,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,780
of 329,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,737
of 4,585 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,967,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 207,444 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,585 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.