Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38091347›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2023

Stakeholder perspectives from 15 countries in Africa on barriers in snakebite envenoming research and the potential role of research hubs.

Ymkje Stienstra, Leslie Mawuli Aglanu, Janna M Schurer, Rhona Mijumbi, Jean Bosco Mbonigaba, Abdulrazaq G Habib, Brent Thomas, Jonathan Steinhorst, Rachael Thomson, Sara Padidar and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
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

13 authors.

Ymkje StienstraCentre for Snakebite Research and Interventions, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8844-8859
Leslie Mawuli AglanuUniversity of Groningen, Department of Internal Medicine/Infectious Diseases, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Janna M SchurerCenter for One Health, University of Global Health Equity, Butaro, Rwanda.
Rhona MijumbiMalawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Programme, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Jean Bosco MbonigabaRwanda Neglected Tropical Diseases Programme, Rwanda Biomedical Centre, Ministry of Health Kigali, Rwanda.
Abdulrazaq G HabibBayero University Kano, Kano state, Nigeria.
Brent ThomasCentre for Snakebite Research and Interventions, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Jonathan SteinhorstUniversity of Groningen, Department of Internal Medicine/Infectious Diseases, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Rachael ThomsonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Sara PadidarEswatini Snakebite Research and Intervention Centre, Simunye, Eswatini.
John H AmuasiGlobal Health and Infectious Diseases Research Group, Kumasi Centre for Collaborative Research in Tropical Medicine, Kumasi, Ghana.
George O OluochCentre for Snakebite Research and Interventions, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
David G LallooCentre for Snakebite Research and Interventions, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 227763/Z/23/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Snakebite envenoming is a debilitating neglected tropical disease disproportionately affecting the rural poor in low and middle-income countries in the tropics and sub-tropics. Critical questions and gaps in public health and policy need to be addressed if major progress is to be made towards reducing the negative impact of snakebite, particularly in the World Health Organisation (WHO) Africa region. We engaged key stakeholders to identify barriers to evidence-based snakebite decision making and to explore how development of research and policy hubs could help to overcome these barriers. We conducted an electronic survey among 73 stakeholders from ministries of health, health facilities, academia and non-governmental organizations from 15 countries in the WHO Africa region. The primary barriers to snakebite research and subsequent policy translation were limited funds, lack of relevant data, and lack of interest from policy makers. Adequate funding commitment, strong political will, building expert networks and a demand for scientific evidence were all considered potential factors that could facilitate snakebite research. Participants rated availability of antivenoms, research skills training and disease surveillance as key research priorities. All participants indicated interest in the development of research and policy hubs and 78% indicated their organization would be willing to actively participate. In conclusion, our survey affirms that relevant stakeholders in the field of snakebite perceive research and policy hubs as a promising development, which could help overcome the barriers to pursuing the WHO goals and targets for reducing the burden of snakebite.

Indexed as

Snake BitesAfricaAntiveninsHumansPublic HealthWorld Health OrganizationAntivenins

Identifiers

PMID38091347
PMCPMC10752511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.