Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37604596›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2023

How and why snakebite became a global health priority: a policy analysis.

Soumyadeep Bhaumik, Anthony B Zwi, Robyn Norton, Jagnoor Jagnoor

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A systematic review of reports on aquatic envenomation: are there global hot spots and vulnerable populations?The journal of venomous animals and toxins including tropical diseases · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Soumyadeep BhaumikInjury Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia sbhaumik@georgeinstitute.org.in.ORCID 0000-0001-9579-4453
Anthony B ZwiSchool of Social Sciences, UNSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Robyn NortonInjury Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jagnoor JagnoorInjury Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
UNSW Sydney · AUThe George Institute for Global Health · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSnakebite was added to the WHO neglected tropical disease (NTD) list in 2017, followed by a World Health Assembly resolution in 2018, and an explicit global target being set to reduce the burden in 2019. We aimed to understand how and why snakebite became a global health priority.

methodsWe conducted a policy case study, using in-depth interviews, and documents (peer-reviewed and grey literature) as data sources. We drew on Shiffman

resultsWe conducted 20 interviews and examined 91 documents. The prioritisation of snakebite occurred in four phases: pre-crescendo, crescendo, de-crescendo and re-crescendo. The core snakebite network consisted of academics, which expanded during the re-crescendo phase to include civil society organisations and state actors. The involvement of diverse stakeholders led to better understanding of WHO processes. The use of intersecting and layered issue framing, framing solutions around snake antivenoms, in a background of cross-cultural fascination and fear of snakes enabled prioritisation in the re-crescendo phase. Ebbs and flows in legitimacy of the network and reluctant acceptance of snakebite within the NTD community are challenges.

conclusionOur analyses imply a fragile placement of snakebite in the global agenda. We identify two challenges, which needs to be overcome. The study highlights the need to review the WHO criteria for classifying diseases as NTD. We propose that future prioritisation analysis should consider identifying temporal patterns, as well as integrating legitimacy dimensions, as in our study.

Indexed as

Global HealthHealth PrioritiesSnake BitesAnimalsAntiveninsHumansPolicy MakingAntiveninsHealth policyPublic HealthQualitative studySnake bite, stings and other evenoming

Identifiers

PMID37604596
PMCPMC10445399
OpenAlexW4386034832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.