Search

Two rural and two urban sites in Nova Scotia received continuing medical education via interactive videoconferencing. Although limited bandwidth and video and sound quality were concerns, 72% of 46 participants felt it was as effective as face-to-face instruction and appreciated not having to travel or lose work time. (SK)

Cyclospora cayetanensis is a parasite causing cyclosporiasis (an illness in humans). Produce (fruits, vegetables, herbs), water and soil contaminated with C. cayetanensis have been implicated in human infection. The objective was to conduct a scoping review of primary research in English on the detection, epidemiology and control of C. cayetanensis with an emphasis on produce, water and soil. MEDLINE® (Web of ScienceTM), Agricola (ProQuest), CABI Global Health, and Food Science and Technology Abstracts (EBSCOhost) were searched from 1979 to February 2020. Of the 349 relevant primary research studies identified, there were 75 detection-method studies, 40 molecular characterisation studies, 38 studies of Cyclospora in the environment (33 prevalence studies, 10 studies of factors associated with environmental contamination), 246 human infection studies (212 prevalence/incidence studies, 32 outbreak studies, 60 studies of environmental factors associated with non-outbreak human infection) and eight control studies. There appears to be sufficient literature for a systematic review of prevalence and factors associated with human infection with C. cayetanensis. There is a dearth of publicly available detection-method studies in soil (n = 0) and water (n = 2), prevalence studies on soil (n = 1) and studies of the control of Cyclospora (particularly on produce prior to retail (n = 0)). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Point sources such as wastewater treatment plants and agricultural facilities may have a role in the dissemination of antibiotic‐resistant bacteria (ARB) and antibiotic resistance genes (ARG). To analyse the evidence for increases in ARB in the natural environment associated with these point sources of ARB and ARG, we conducted a systematic review. We evaluated 5,247 records retrieved through database searches, including both studies that ascertained ARG and ARB outcomes. All studies were subjected to a screening process to assess relevance to the question and methodology to address our review question. A risk of bias assessment was conducted upon the final pool of studies included in the review. This article summarizes the evidence only for those studies with ARB outcomes (n = 47). Thirty‐five studies were at high (n = 11) or at unclear (n = 24) risk of bias in the estimation of source effects due to lack of information and/or failure to control for confounders. Statistical analysis was used in ten studies, of which one assessed the effect of multiple sources using modelling approaches; none reported effect measures. Most studies reported higher ARB prevalence or concentration downstream/near the source. However, this evidence was primarily descriptive and it could not be concluded that there is a clear impact of point sources on increases in ARB in the environment. To quantify increases in ARB in the environment due to specific point sources, there is a need for studies that stress study design, control of biases and analytical tools to provide effect measure estimates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reporting of observational studies in veterinary research presents challenges that often are not addressed in published reporting guidelines. Our objective was to develop an extension of the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement that addresses unique reporting requirements for observational studies in veterinary medicine related to health, production, welfare, and food safety. We conducted a consensus meeting with 17 experts in Mississauga, Canada. Experts completed a premeeting survey about whether items in the STROBE statement should be modified or added to address unique issues related to observational studies in animal species with health, production, welfare, or food safety outcomes. During the meeting, each STROBE item was discussed to determine whether or not rewording was recommended, and whether additions were warranted. Anonymous voting was used to determine consensus. Six items required no modifications or additions. Modifications or additions were made to the STROBE items 1 (title and abstract), 3 (objectives), 5 (setting), 6 (participants), 7 (variables), 8 (data sources and measurement), 9 (bias), 10 (study size), 12 (statistical methods), 13 (participants), 14 (descriptive data), 15 (outcome data), 16 (main results), 17 (other analyses), 19 (limitations), and 22 (funding). The methods and processes used were similar to those used for other extensions of the STROBE statement. The use of this STROBE statement extension should improve reporting of observational studies in veterinary research by recognizing unique features of observational studies involving food-producing and companion animals, products of animal origin, aquaculture, and wildlife. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Zoonoses pose a significant burden of illness in North America. Zoonoses represent an additional threat to public health because the natural reservoirs are often animals, particularly wildlife, thus eluding control efforts such as quarantine, vaccination and social distancing. As there are limited resources available, it is necessary to prioritize diseases in order to allocate resources to those posing the greatest public health threat. Many studies have attempted to prioritize zoonoses, but challenges exist. This study uses a quantitative approach, conjoint analysis ( CA), to overcome some limitations of traditional disease prioritization exercises. We used CA to conduct a zoonoses prioritization study involving a range of human and animal health professionals across North America; these included epidemiologists, public health practitioners, research scientists, physicians, veterinarians, laboratory technicians and nurses. A total of 699 human health professionals ( HHP) and 585 animal health professionals ( AHP) participated in this study. We used CA to prioritize 62 zoonotic diseases using 21 criteria. Our findings suggest CA can be used to produce reasonable criteria scores for disease prioritization. The fitted models were satisfactory for both groups with a slightly better fit for AHP compared to HHP (84.4% certainty fit versus 83.6%). Human-related criteria were more influential for HHP in their decision to prioritize zoonoses, while animal-related criteria were more influential for AHP resulting in different disease priority lists. While the differences were not statistically significant, a difference of one or two ranks could be considered important for some individuals. A potential solution to address the varying opinions is discussed. The scientific framework for disease prioritization presented can be revised on a regular basis by updating disease criteria to reflect diseases as they evolve over time; such a framework is of value allowing diseases of highest impact to be identified routinely for resource allocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]