Estimating Foodborne Gastroenteritis, Australia

Hall, Gillian; Kirk, Martyn; Becker, Niels G.; Gregory, Joy; Unicomb, Leanne; Millard, Geoffrey; Stafford, Russell; Lalor, Karin

doi:10.3201/eid1108.041367

Cited by 205 publications

(187 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

161

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The evidence for the impact of zoonotic disease on human health is very strong, partly as a result of the aforementioned Global Disease Burden studies: of the 35 leading communicable causes of death, 15 are either zoonoses or have a zoonotic component. There have also been a number of systematic studies showing the high burden of foodborne diseases, the majority of which are zoonoses (Adak et al 2005;CDC 2005;Hall et al 2005). Unfortunately, none of the most important diseases have been thoroughly investigated in the context of developing countries.…”

Section: The Role Of Livestock In Pro-poor Development Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impacts of livestock diseases and their control on growth and development processes that are pro-poor

Perry¹,

Grace

2009

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

204

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poverty is now at the heart of development discourse; we discuss how it is measured and understood. We next consider the negative and positive impacts of livestock on pro-poor development. Taking a value-chain approach that includes keepers, users and eaters of livestock, we identify diseases that are road blocks on the 'three livestock pathways out of poverty'. We discuss livestock impacts on poverty reduction and review attempts to prioritize the livestock diseases relevant to the poor. We make suggestions for metrics that better measure disease impact and show the benefits of more rigorous evaluation before reviewing recent attempts to measure the importance of disease to the poor. High impact of a disease does not guarantee high benefits from its control; other factors must be taken into consideration, including technical feasibility and political desirability. We conclude by considering how we might better understand and exploit the roles of livestock and improved animal health by posing three speculative questions on the impact of livestock diseases and their control on global poverty: how can understanding livestock and poverty links help disease control?; if global poverty reduction was the aim of livestock disease control, how would it differ from the current model?; and how much of the impact of livestock disease on poverty is due to disease control policy rather than disease itself?

show abstract

Section: The Role Of Livestock In Pro-poor Development Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impacts of livestock diseases and their control on growth and development processes that are pro-poor

Perry¹,

Grace

2009

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

204

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 Transmission may occur when people come into contact with a contaminated environment or an infected animal. Some Salmonella serotypes are more commonly found in the environment and in distinct geographical areas.…”

Section: Environmental Salmonella Infectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bug Breakfast in theBulletin:Salmonella: pits and pets

Carroll¹,

Staff²,

Kirk³

2009

NSW Public Health Bull.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Controls were drawn (about one per case) from a control bank generated during a national crosssectional survey of gastroenteritis conducted in 2001 ; a description of the survey is given by Hall et al [31] and a description of control selection is reported by Stafford et al [13]. In brief, households were selected using random digit dialling during the gastroenteritis survey, a household member was asked to participate in the survey and subsequently consent to be part of a control bank.…”

Section: Study Basementioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors for infection withCampylobacter jejuni flaAgenotypes

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYWe aimed to explore Campylobacter genotype-specific risk factors in Australia. Isolates collected prospectively from cases recruited into a case-control study were genotyped using flaA restriction fragment-length polymorphism typing (flaA genotyping). Exposure information for cases and controls was collected by telephone interview. Risk factors were examined for major flaA genotypes using logistic and multinomial regression. Five flaA genotypes accounted for 325 of 590 (55 %) cases -flaA-6b (n=129), flaA-6 (n=70), flaA-10 (n=48), flaA-2 (n=43), flaA-131 (n=35). In Australia, infections due to flaA-10 and flaA-2 were found to be significantly associated with eating non-poultry meat (beef and ham, respectively) in both case-control and inter-genotype comparisons. All major genotypes apart from flaA-10 were associated with chicken consumption in the case-control comparisons. Based on several clinical criteria, infections due to flaA-2 were more severe than those due to other genotypes. Thus genotype analysis may reveal genotype-specific niches and differences in virulence and transmission routes.

show abstract

Estimating Foodborne Gastroenteritis, Australia

Abstract: An estimated 4.0–6.9 million episodes of foodborne gastroenteritis occur in Australia each year.

Cited by 205 publications

References 19 publications

The impacts of livestock diseases and their control on growth and development processes that are pro-poor

The impacts of livestock diseases and their control on growth and development processes that are pro-poor

Bug Breakfast in theBulletin:Salmonella: pits and pets

Risk factors for infection withCampylobacter jejuni flaAgenotypes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About