Use of lay vaccinators in animal vaccination programmes: A scoping review.
Use of lay vaccinators in animal vaccination programmes: A scoping review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pntd.0009691
复制
发表时间：
2021-08
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Cleaveland S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Duamor CT;Hampson K;Lankester F;Sambo M;Kreppel K;Wyke S;Cleaveland S
兽医部门的人力资源缺口，特别是在低收入国家，限制了向难以接触到的人群提供动物保健服务。非专业动物卫生工作者已被部署到这些环境中以填补空白，但人们对这样做的好处以及他们是否能够安全地提供服务持不同意见。我们绘制了关于分配给非专业动物接种员的作用的性质和程度的证据，并确定了对他们未来部署有用的经验教训。根据PRISMA扩展范围评价指南，我们检索了七个书目数据库，检索了1980年至2021年间发表的文章，检索词为“普通人”或“社区志愿者”或“动物卫生工作者”或“疫苗接种者”*，并应用先验排除标准筛选研究。在已确定的30项研究中，非政府发展规划（n = 12, 40%）、研究规划（n = 10, 33%）和政府规划（n = 5, 17%）利用非专业接种员为家畜接种疫苗。使用非专业接种员的主要原因是在没有专业兽医的情况下提供动物疫苗接种（n = 12.40%）。报告的项目积极成果包括增加畜群和牛群规模以及农民对最佳做法的了解（n = 13,43%）；减少疾病传播、暴发和死亡率（n = 11.37%）；更高的疫苗接种覆盖率（10.33%）；接种疫苗的畜群的血清转化率和出生率（n = 3,10 %）。非专业接种员规划最常报告的促进因素是社区参与（n = 14.47%），而来自专业兽医的反对（n = 8.27%）、利益相关者寻求经济利益而损害规划目标（n = 8.27%）和规划问题（n = 8.27%）是最常报告的障碍。没有关于成本效益的研究报告，我们也没有发现中低收入国家将非专业接种员规划纳入国家兽医服务的记录。尽管大多数纳入的研究报告称，与问题和挑战相比，非专业接种者规划的益处和积极看法更多，但正规化将确保规划的设计和实施能够满足所有利益攸关方的需求。在难以到达的环境中缺乏专业的动物保健工作者的情况下，利用受过有限的非正规培训的非专业人员提供动物保健服务，包括疫苗接种。尽管非专业人员在动物卫生部门发挥着至关重要的作用，但他们的服务在官方动物卫生系统中基本上没有得到承认。我们收集了有关非专业人员如何被用于动物疫苗接种规划的证据，并就如何更有效地利用他们提出了建议。我们发现它们被政府和非政府机构用来为不同的家畜接种疫苗，并提供定期的动物保健服务。它们主要用于没有专业动物保健工作者或数量有限的地方。这些项目在得到公众和机构支持的情况下更为成功，其成果与专业人士提供的成果在很大程度上相似。我们还发现，社区参与是一个重要的促进因素，而他们面临的主要挑战是来自专业兽医的反对，利益相关者的经济利益和规划问题。我们的结论是，如果得到更好的监管，非专业动物疫苗接种计划可能会更有益。
The human resource gap in veterinary sectors, particularly in low-income countries, imposes limitations on the delivery of animal healthcare in hard-to-reach populations. Lay animal health workers have been deployed in these settings to fill the gap though there are mixed views about the benefits of doing this and whether they can deliver services safely. We mapped evidence on the nature and extent of roles assigned to lay animal vaccinators, and identified lessons useful for their future deployment. Following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, we searched seven bibliographic databases for articles published between 1980 and 2021, with the search terms lay OR community-based OR volunteer AND "animal health worker" OR vaccinator*, and applied an a priori exclusion criteria to select studies. From 30 identified studies, lay vaccinators were used by non-government developmental (n = 12, 40%), research (n = 10, 33%) and government (n = 5, 17%) programmes to vaccinate domestic animals. The main reason for using lay vaccinators was to provide access to animal vaccination in the absence of professional veterinarians (n = 12, 40%). Reported positive outcomes of programmes included increased flock and herd sizes and farmer knowledge of best practice (n = 13, 43%); decreased disease transmission, outbreaks and mortality (n = 11, 37%); higher vaccination coverage (10, 33%); non-inferior seroconversion and birth rates among vaccinated herds (n = 3, 10%). The most frequently reported facilitating factor of lay vaccinator programmes was community participation (n = 14, 47%), whilst opposition from professional veterinarians (n = 8, 27%), stakeholders seeking financial gains to detriment of programmes goals (n = 8, 27%) and programming issues (n = 8, 27%) were the most frequently reported barriers. No study reported on cost-effectiveness and we found no record from a low and middle-income country of lay vaccinator programmes being integrated into national veterinary services. Although the majority of included studies reported more benefits and positive perceptions of lay vaccinator programmes than problems and challenges, regularization will ensure the programmes can be designed and implemented to meet the needs of all stakeholders. In the absence of professional animal healthcare workers in hard-to-reach settings, lay persons, with limited, non-formal training, have been used to provide animal healthcare services, including vaccination. In spite of the perceived crucial roles lay persons play in the animal health sector, their services are largely unrecognized within official animal healthcare systems. We compiled evidence on how lay persons have been used in animal vaccination programmes and make recommendations regarding how they can be used in more effective ways. We found they were used by both government and non-government institutions to vaccinate different domestic animals and provide regular animal healthcare services. They were mainly used where professional animal healthcare workers are not available or are limited in number. The programmes were more successful where they had the support of the public and institutions, and their outcomes were largely similar to those delivered by professionals. We also found that community participation was an important facilitating factor, whilst the main challenges they faced were opposition from professional veterinarians, financial interests of stakeholders and planning issues. We concluded that lay animal vaccinator programmes could be more beneficial if better regulated.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
1.7
作者：
Harrison, Jennifer L.;Alders, Robyn G.
通讯作者：
Alders, Robyn G.
影响因子：
1.7
作者：
Admassu, B;Nega, S;Catley, A
通讯作者：
Catley, A
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Faris, D.;Yilkal, A.;Kelay, B.
通讯作者：
Kelay, B.
DOI：
10.1016/s0301-6226(01)00187-7
发表时间：
2001-12-05
期刊：
LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SCIENCE
影响因子：
--
作者：
Hüttner, K;Leidl, K;Jere, FBD
通讯作者：
Jere, FBD
影响因子：
1.7
作者：
Curran, MM;MacLehose, HG
通讯作者：
MacLehose, HG