Positioning zoonotic disease research in forced migration: A systematic literature review of theoretical frameworks and approaches

Abstract

Background The emergence and transmission of zoonotic diseases are driven by complex interactions between health, environmental, and socio-political systems. Human movement is considered a significant and increasing factor in these processes, yet forced migration remains an understudied area of zoonotic research–due in part to the complexity of conducting interdisciplinary research in these settings. Objectives We conducted a systematic review to identify and analyze theoretical frameworks and approaches used to study linkages between forced migration and zoonotic diseases. Methods We searched within eight electronic databases: ProQuest, SCOPUS, Web of Science, PubMed, PLoSOne, Science Direct, JSTOR, and Google Scholar, to identify a) research articles focusing on zoonoses considering forced migrants in their study populations, and b) forced migration literature which engaged with zoonotic disease. Both authors conducted a full-text review, evaluating the quality of literature reviews and primary data using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) model, while theoretical papers were evaluated for quality using a theory synthesis adapted from Bonell et al. (2013). Qualitative data were synthesized thematically according to the method suggested by Noblit and Hare (1988). Results Analyses of the 23 included articles showed the increasing use of interdisciplinary frameworks and approaches over time, the majority of which stemmed from political ecology. Approaches such as EcoHealth and One Health were increasingly popular, but were more often linked to program implementation and development than broader contextual research. The majority of research failed to acknowledge the heterogeneity of migrant populations, lacked contextual depth, and insufficient acknowledgments of migrant agency in responding to zoonotic threats. Conclusions Addressing the emergence and spread of zoonoses in forced migration contexts requires more careful consideration and use of interdisciplinary research to integrate the contributions of social and natural science approaches. Robust interdisciplinary theoretical frameworks are an important step for better understanding the complex health, environment, and socio-political drivers of zoonotic diseases in forced migration. Lessons can be learned from the application of these approaches in other hard-to-reach or seldom-heard populations.

The Importance of the One Health Concept in Combating Zoonoses

“…There were also 53.2 million internally displaced people, 4.6 million asylum seekers, and 4.4 million Venezuelans displaced abroad” [ 26 ]. The population movement, paired with various social factors, such as the length of stay in host areas, disease exposure, lifestyle changes, lack of healthy practices, and limited access to healthcare can lead to zoonotic epidemics [ 27 ].…”

Zoonoses in the margins: environmental displacement and health outcomes in the Indus Delta

“…The multifaceted factors determining health have been described by WHO as the 'social determinants of health': the non-medical factors determining health outcomes, including socio-economic, living conditions, food insecurity, conflict and access to (health) services [36]. Similarly, studies into zoonotic disease emergence and transmission increasingly use inclusive frameworks such as One Health, Ecohealth and Planetary Health to improve the consideration of linkages between veterinary, human, and ecosystem health [37]. While these new approaches are valuable in terms of describing health outcomes within environmental and planetary boundaries, especially in light of climate change, these rarely focus on the underlying mechanisms creating health inequalities, or the 'determination' rather than the determinants of health [38].…”

Status of zoonotic disease research in refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced people, globally: A scoping review of forty clinically important zoonotic pathogens

“…Furthermore, LMICs often have limited diagnostic capacity or comprehensive surveillance systems [7]. In low and middle income settings, endemic zoonotic diseases are responsible for an estimated 20% of infectious disease burden in humans, and due to limited evidence, this might represent an under estimation [8,9].…”