15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Identifying the impediments and enablers of ecohealth for a case study on health and environmental sanitation in Hà Nam, Vietnam

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          To date, research has shown an increasing use of the term “ecohealth” in literature, but few researchers have explicitly described how it has been used. We investigated a project on health and environmental sanitation (the conceptual framework of which included the pillars of ecohealth) to identify the impediments and enablers of ecohealth and investigate how it can move from concept to practice.

          Methods

          A case study approach was used. The interview questions were centred on the nature of interactions and the sharing of information between stakeholders.

          Results

          The analysis identified nine impediments and 15 enablers of ecohealth. Three themes relating to impediments, in particular— integration is not clear, don’t understand, and limited participation—related more directly to the challenges in applying the ecohealth pillars of transdisciplinarity and participation. The themes relating to enablers— awareness and understanding, capacity development, and interactions—facilitated usage of the research results. By extracting information on the environmental, social, economic, and health aspects of environmental sanitation, we found that the issue spanned multiple scales and sectors.

          Conclusion

          The challenge of how to integrate these aspects should be considered at the design stage and throughout the research process. We recommend that ecohealth research teams include a self-investigation of their processes in order to facilitate a comparison of moving from concept to practice, which may offer insights into how to evaluate the process.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2049-9957-3-36) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          From “one medicine” to “one health” and systemic approaches to health and well-being☆

          Faced with complex patterns of global change, the inextricable interconnection of humans, pet animals, livestock and wildlife and their social and ecological environment is evident and requires integrated approaches to human and animal health and their respective social and environmental contexts. The history of integrative thinking of human and animal health is briefly reviewed from early historical times, to the foundation of universities in Europe, up to the beginning of comparative medicine at the end of the 19th century. In the 20th century, Calvin Schwabe coined the concept of “one medicine”. It recognises that there is no difference of paradigm between human and veterinary medicine and both disciplines can contribute to the development of each other. Considering a broader approach to health and well-being of societies, the original concept of “one medicine” was extended to “one health” through practical implementations and careful validations in different settings. Given the global health thinking in recent decades, ecosystem approaches to health have emerged. Based on complex ecological thinking that goes beyond humans and animals, these approaches consider inextricable linkages between ecosystems and health, known as “ecosystem health”. Despite these integrative conceptual and methodological developments, large portions of human and animal health thinking and actions still remain in separate disciplinary silos. Evidence for added value of a coherent application of “one health” compared to separated sectorial thinking is, however, now growing. Integrative thinking is increasingly being considered in academic curricula, clinical practice, ministries of health and livestock/agriculture and international organizations. Challenges remain, focusing around key questions such as how does “one health” evolve and what are the elements of a modern theory of health? The close interdependence of humans and animals in their social and ecological context relates to the concept of “human-environmental systems”, also called “social-ecological systems”. The theory and practice of understanding and managing human activities in the context of social-ecological systems has been well-developed by members of The Resilience Alliance and was used extensively in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, including its work on human well-being outcomes. This in turn entails systems theory applied to human and animal health. Examples of successful systems approaches to public health show unexpected results. Analogous to “systems biology” which focuses mostly on the interplay of proteins and molecules at a sub-cellular level, a systemic approach to health in social-ecological systems (HSES) is an inter- and trans-disciplinary study of complex interactions in all health-related fields. HSES moves beyond “one health” and “eco-health”, expecting to identify emerging properties and determinants of health that may arise from a systemic view ranging across scales from molecules to the ecological and socio-cultural context, as well from the comparison with different disease endemicities and health systems structures.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Risk factors for Entamoeba histolytica infection in an agricultural community in Hanam province, Vietnam

              Background Entamoeba histolytica is an important protozoan intestinal infection in resource-poor settings, including Vietnam. The study objective was to assess risk factors of E. histolytica infection in a community in Vietnam, where wastewater and human excreta are used in agriculture. A case-control study was conducted among residents of Hanam province, Northern Vietnam. Cases (n = 46) infected with E. histolytica and non-infected controls (n = 138) were identified in a cross-sectional survey among 794 randomly selected individuals and matched for age, sex and place of residence. Potential risk factors including exposure to human and animal excreta and household wastewater were assessed with a questionnaire. Results People from households with an average socio-economic status had a much higher risk of E. histolytica infection (odds ratio [OR]=4.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-14.0) compared with those from households with a good socioeconomic status. Those individuals who never or rarely used soap for hand washing had a 3.4 times higher risk for infection (OR=3.4, 95% CI: 1.1-10.0), compared to those who used always soap. In contrast, none of the factors related to use of human or animal excreta was statistically significant associated with E. histolytica infection. People having close contact with domestic animals presented a greater risk of E. histolytica infection (OR = 5.9, 95% CI: 1.8-19.0) than those without animal contact. E. histolytica infection was not associated with direct contact with Nhue river water, pond water and household's sanitary conditions, type of latrine or water source used. Conclusions Our study suggests that in settings where human and animal excreta and Nhue River water are intensively used in agriculture, socio-economic and personal hygiene factors determine infection with E. histolytica, rather than exposure to human and animal excreta in agricultural activities.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                vivivinguyen@gmail.com
                h.nguyen@cgiar.org
                pdp@hsph.edu.vn
                cstephen@ccwhc.ca
                smcewen@uoguelph.ca
                Journal
                Infect Dis Poverty
                Infect Dis Poverty
                Infectious Diseases of Poverty
                BioMed Central (London )
                2049-9957
                1 October 2014
                1 October 2014
                2014
                : 3
                : 1
                : 36
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, 2509 Stewart Building (#45), Guelph, N1G 2W1 ON Canada
                [ ]Public Health Risk Sciences Division, Laboratory for Foodborne Zoonoses, Public Health Agency of Canada, 160 Research Lane, Unit 206, Guelph, ON N1G 5B2 Canada
                [ ]Center for Public Health and Ecosystem Research, Hanoi School of Public Health (HSPH), 138 Giang Vo Street, Hanoi, Vietnam
                [ ]Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH), and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Socinstrasse 57, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland and Hanoi, Vietnam
                [ ]Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (ESWAG), Sandec – Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries, P.O. Box, CH-8600, Dübendorf, Switzerland
                [ ]Department of Ecosystem and Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, TRW 2D26 3280 Hospital Drive, NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6 Canada
                [ ]Centre for Coastal Health, 900 Fifth Street, Nanaimo, British Columbia V9R 5S5 Canada
                Article
                77
                10.1186/2049-9957-3-36
                4194379
                c58518d0-e6db-44ad-9fab-dd9854d517fd
                © Nguyen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

                This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 28 June 2014
                : 12 September 2014
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2014

                ecohealth,evaluation,health,sanitation,case study,vietnam
                ecohealth, evaluation, health, sanitation, case study, vietnam

                Comments

                Comment on this article