Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12646-7
DC FieldValue
dc.titleInfectious disease surveillance for refugees at borders and in destination countries: a scoping review
dc.contributor.authorSaleh, Majd
dc.contributor.authorFarah, Zeina
dc.contributor.authorHoward, Natasha
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-04T06:20:34Z
dc.date.available2022-05-04T06:20:34Z
dc.date.issued2022-02-04
dc.identifier.citationSaleh, Majd, Farah, Zeina, Howard, Natasha (2022-02-04). Infectious disease surveillance for refugees at borders and in destination countries: a scoping review. BMC PUBLIC HEALTH 22 (1). ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12646-7
dc.identifier.issn14712458
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/224717
dc.description.abstractBackground: Data on infectious disease surveillance for migrants on arrival and in destination countries are limited, despite global migration increases, and more are needed to inform national surveillance policies. Our study aimed to examine the scope of existing literature including existing infectious disease surveillance activities, surveillance methods used, surveillance policies or protocols, and potential lessons reported. Methods: Using Arksey and O’Malley’s six-stage approach, we screened four scientific databases systematically and 11 websites, Google, and Google Scholar purposively using search terms related to ‘refugee’ and ‘infectious disease surveillance’ with no restrictions on time-period or country. Title/abstracts and full texts were screened against eligibility criteria and extracted data were synthesised thematically. Results: We included 20 eligible sources of 728 identified. Reporting countries were primarily European and all were published between 1999 and 2019. Surveillance methods included 9 sources on syndromic surveillance, 2 on Early Warning and Response (EWAR), 1 on cross-border surveillance, and 1 on GeoSentinel clinic surveillance. Only 7 sources mentioned existing surveillance protocols and communication with reporting sites, while policies around surveillance were almost non-existent. Eleven included achievements such as improved partner collaboration, while 6 reported the lack of systematic approaches to surveillance. Conclusion: This study identified minimal literature on infectious disease surveillance for migrants in transit and destination countries. We found significant gaps geographically and on surveillance policies and protocols. Countries receiving refugees could document and share disease surveillance methods and findings to fill these gaps and support other countries in improving disease surveillance.
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherBMC
dc.sourceElements
dc.subjectScience & Technology
dc.subjectLife Sciences & Biomedicine
dc.subjectPublic, Environmental & Occupational Health
dc.subjectRefugees
dc.subjectMigrants
dc.subjectSurveillance
dc.subjectInfectious diseases
dc.subjectPolicies
dc.subjectProtocols
dc.subjectHEALTH
dc.subjectMIGRANTS
dc.subjectSYSTEM
dc.typeReview
dc.date.updated2022-05-04T05:57:00Z
dc.contributor.departmentDEAN'S OFFICE (SSH SCH OF PUBLIC HEALTH)
dc.description.doi10.1186/s12889-022-12646-7
dc.description.sourcetitleBMC PUBLIC HEALTH
dc.description.volume22
dc.description.issue1
dc.published.statePublished
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications
Elements

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
2022.02.04L Saleh BMC-PH.pdfPublished version882.97 kBAdobe PDF

OPEN

PublishedView/Download

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.