Background Authorities in Somalia responded with drastic measures after the first confirmed COVID-19 case in mid-March 2020, closing borders, schools, limiting travel and prohibiting most group functions. However, the impact of the pandemic in Somalia thereafter remained unclear. This study employs a novel remote qualitative research method in a conflict-affected setting to look at how some of the most at-risk internally displaced and host populations were impacted by COVID-19, what determined their responses, and how this affected their health and socio-economic vulnerability. Methods We conducted a remote qualitative study, using Katikati, a 1-to-1 conversation management and analysis platform using short message service (SMS) developed by Lark Systems with Africa’s Voices Foundation (AVF), for semi-structured interviews over three months with participants in Mogadishu and Baidoa. We recruited a gender balanced cohort across age groups, and used an analytical framework on the social determinants of health for a narrative analysis on major themes discussed, triangulating data with existing peer-reviewed and grey literature. Results The remote research approach demonstrated efficacy in sustaining trusted and meaningful conversations for gathering qualitative data from hard-to-reach conflict-affected communities. The major themes discussed by the 35 participants included health, livelihoods and education. Two participants contracted the disease, while others reported family or community members affected by COVID-19. Almost all participants faced a loss of income and/or education, primarily as a result of the strict public health measures. Some of those who were heavily affected economically but did not directly experienced disease, denied the pandemic. Religion played an important role in participants’ beliefs in protection against and salvation from the disease. As lockdowns were lifted in August 2020, many believed the pandemic to be over. Conclusions While the official COVID-19 burden has remained relatively low in Somalia, the impact to people’s daily lives, income and livelihoods due to public health responses, has been significant. Participants describe those ‘secondary’ outcomes as the main impact of the pandemic, serving as a stark reminder of the need to broaden the public health response beyond disease prevention to include social and economic interventions to decrease people’s vulnerability to future shocks.

No abstract

Background Outbreaks of zoonotic diseases that transmit between animals and humans, against a backdrop of increasing levels of forced migration, present a major challenge to global public health. This review provides an overview of the currently available evidence of how displacement may affect zoonotic disease and pathogen transmission, with the aim to better understand how to protect health and resilience of displaced and host populations. Methods A systematic review was conducted aligned with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Between December 2019 - February 2020, PubMed, Web of Science, PLoS, ProQuest, Science Direct and JSTOR were searched for literature. Studies were included based on a focus on zoonotic disease risks in displacement and/or humanitarian emergencies, and relevance in terms of livestock dependency of the displaced populations. Evidence was synthesised in form of a table and thematic analysis. Results Of all records, 78 papers were selected for inclusion. Among the included studies, the majority were based on secondary data, including literature reviews (n=43) and case studies (n=5), while the majority of papers covered wide geographical areas such as the Global South (n=17) and Africa (n=20). The review shows significant gaps in the literature, which is specifically lacking primary data on zoonotic diseases in displacement. Risk factors for the transmission of zoonoses in displacement are based on generic infectious disease risks, which include the loss of health services, increased population density, changes in environment, reduced quality of living conditions and socio-economic factors. Regardless of the presence of these disease drivers during forced migration however, there is little evidence of large-scale zoonotic disease outbreaks linked directly to livestock in displacement. Conclusion Due to the lack of primary research, the complex interlinkages of factors affecting zoonotic pathogen transmission in displacement remain unclear. While the presence of animals may increase the burden of zoonotic pathogens, maintaining access to livestock may improve livelihoods, nutrition and mental health, with the potential to reduce people’s vulnerability to disease. Further primary interdisciplinary and multi-sectoral research is urgently required to address the evidence gaps identified in this review to support policy and program development.

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 Syrian civil war caused a near total collapse of its health and veterinary infrastructure, affecting vaccinations, quarantine and border control. While outbreaks of zoonoses—diseases transmissible between animals and humans—in neighbouring countries are attributed to irregular cross-border movements, little remains known about the impact of conflict and displacement on livestock, and zoonotic disease risks in refugee and host populations. This case study investigates the role of livestock and zoonotic disease dynamics in the Syrian refugee context in Jordan, to inform policies and procedures for better inclusion of livestock in refugee responses. Key informant interviews were conducted with humanitarian, animal and public health experts, and household interviews with Jordanian and Syrian livestock keepers in Mafraq Governorate. Respondents attributed zoonotic disease outbreaks to cross-border smuggling of livestock, with no reports of refugees bringing animals into Jordan. While Syrian respondents diversify their livelihoods through animal husbandry, high-level political and practical barriers affect refugees’ access to livestock assistance, increasing zoonotic disease risks. To support animal and human health, stakeholders need to address structural inequalities through inclusive policies and support to both refugees and host populations.

Projected increases in human and animal displacement driven by climate change, disasters and related environmental degradation will have significant implications to global health. Pathways for infectious disease transmission including zoonoses, diseases transmitted between animals and humans, are complex and non-linear. While forced migration is considered an important driver for the spread of zoonoses, actual disease dynamics remain under researched. This paper presents the findings of a case study investigating how disaster displacement affected zoonotic disease transmission risk following the 2010 ‘superfloods’ in Sindh province, Pakistan. We interviewed 30 key informants and 17 household members across 6 rural communities between March and November 2019, supported by observational studies and a review of secondary data. Results were analysed using the ecosocial theoretical framework. Buffalo, cattle and goats were often the only moveable asset, therefore livestock was an important consideration in determining displacement modality and destination location, and crowded locations were avoided to protect human and animal health. Meanwhile however, livestock was rarely included in the humanitarian response, resulting in communities and households fragmenting according to the availability of livestock provisions. We found that rather than a driver for disease, displacement acted as a process affecting community, household and individual zoonotic disease risk dynamics, based on available resources and social networks before, during and after displacement, rooted in the historical, political and socio-economic context. We conclude that in rural Sindh, disaster displaced populations’ risk of zoonoses is the result of changes in dynamics rooted in pre-existing structural and chronic inequalities, making people more or less vulnerable to disease through multiple interlinked pathways. Our findings have implications for policy makers and humanitarian responders assisting displaced populations dependent on livestock, with a call to integrate livestock support in humanitarian policies and responses for health, survival and recovery.

BackgroundThe 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.ObjectivesWe conducted a systematic review to identify and analyze theoretical frameworks and approaches used to study linkages between forced migration and zoonotic diseases.MethodsWe 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 and Fletcher (2013). Qualitative data were synthesized thematically according to the method suggested by Noblit and Hare (1988).ResultsAnalyses 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 acknowledgement of migrant agency in responding to zoonotic threats.ConclusionsAddressing 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.

Increased outbreaks of zoonotic diseases with pandemic potential and the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance have stimulated the uptake and use of One Health approaches across the globe. Collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approaches are vital to the effective response to health challenges; however, within One Health initiatives, animal and environmental health voices often remain secondary to human health. This article presents the findings of a transdisciplinary research project investigating the roles and contributions of animal health in One Health initiatives. We combined a multisite case study approach with a literature review, and conducted 22 semi-structured key informant interviews with animal health and One Health experts, with a focus on Ethiopia and Pakistan. Key themes explored were the nature of the animal health sector, animal health workforce, veterinary medicines and vaccines, and coordination and collaboration. Results were triangulated with existing primary and secondary data, reviewed by key stakeholders in Ethiopia and Pakistan, and tested with members of the Action for Animal Health (A4AH) coalition. We found that while One Health has become more interdisciplinary and inclusive at a global level, there remain significant challenges in operationalizing the approach at national and subnational levels. Gaps in governance, political will, and capacity undermine the inclusion of animal health in One Health structures. Power and resources are distributed unequally across One Health coalitions, echoing observations that acknowledge the crucial role of communities in supporting the provision of essential services, while their knowledge and experiences often remain excluded from project and policy development. We conclude that stronger multilevel linkages and engagement between animal health and other sectors are vital to support the implementation of inclusive, well-resourced, and effective One Health approaches.