Pokaż uproszczony rekord

Parasite Epidemiology and Control

dc.contributor.authorvan der Giessen, Joke
dc.contributor.authorDeksne, Gunita
dc.contributor.authorGómez-Morales, Maria
dc.contributor.authorTroell, Karin
dc.contributor.authorGomes, Jacinto
dc.contributor.authorSotriaki, Smaragda
dc.contributor.authorRóżycki, Mirosław
dc.contributor.authorKucsera, Istvan
dc.contributor.authorDjurković-Djaković, Olga
dc.contributor.authorRobertson, Lucy
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-31T07:20:10Z
dc.date.available2021-12-31T07:20:10Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifierhttps://dspace.piwet.pulawy.pl/xmlui/handle/123456789/161
dc.identifier.issn2405-6731
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405673121000064?via%3Dihub
dc.description.abstractIn 2012, WHO/FAO ranked 24 foodborne parasites (FBP) using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to provide risk assessors with a basis for prioritising control of highly ranked FBP on the global level. One conclusion was that ranking may differ substantially per region. In Europe, the same methodology was used to rank FBP of relevance for Europe. Of the 24 FBP, the top-five prioritised FBP were identified for Europe as Echinococcus multilocularis, Toxoplasma gondii, Trichinella spiralis, E. granulosus, and Cryptosporidium spp., all of which are zoonotic. The objective of the present study was to provide an overview of surveillance and reporting systems in Europe for these top five prioritised FBP in the human and animal populations, to identify gaps, and give recommendations for improvement. Information on the surveillance systems was collected from 35 European countries and analysed according to the five different regions. For most FBP, human surveillance is passive in most countries and regions in Europe and notification differs between countries and regions. Adequate surveillance programmes for these FBP are lacking, except for T. spiralis, which is notifiable in 34 countries with active surveillance in susceptible animals under EU directive. Although human and animal surveillance data are available for the five prioritised FBP, we identified a lack of consistency in surveillance and reporting requirements between national experts and European bodies. Recommendations for improved surveillance systems are discussed.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.subjectanimalsen_US
dc.subjectOne Health surveillanceen_US
dc.subjectFoodborne parasitesen_US
dc.titleSurveillance of foodborne parasitic diseases in Europe in a One Health approachen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitation2021 vol. 13, e00205
dcterms.titleParasite Epidemiology and Control
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.parepi.2021.e00205


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord