Ethical dimensions of neglected tropical disease programming

Mass drug administration for neglected tropical disease control and elimination: a systematic review of ethical reasons

BACKGROUND

Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are a diverse group of debilitating diseases and conditions afflicting more than one billion people in impoverished communities. Control of these diseases is crucial to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3 and the pledge to 'leave no one behind'. Relying on large-scale delivery of wide-spectrum drugs to individuals in at-risk communities irrespective of their health status, mass drug administration is a core strategy for tackling half of the NTDs targeted by the latest WHO roadmap (2021-2030). However, ethical challenges surround its implementation and long-term impact. This systematic review aims to give a comprehensive picture of the variety of ethical reasons for and against mass drug administration for NTD control and elimination, facilitating further debate in ethics and policy.

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection were searched for all relevant publications. Of the 486 retrieved records, 60 met the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis. Ethical reasons discussing the topic at hand were extracted from full texts and synthesised through the Kuckartz method of qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Data extraction revealed 61 ethical reasons, of which 20 (32.7%) had positive, 13 (21.3%) had ambivalent and 28 (45.9%) had negative implications regarding mass drug administration for NTDs. The health benefits and cost-effectiveness of the measure were extensively highlighted. However, equity, autonomy and sustainability emerged as the domains with the most pressing ethical concerns. Many issues related to implementation are yet to be adequately addressed in policy documents.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review of ethical reasons pertaining to mass drug administration for NTD control and elimination. Due to the diversity of included studies, no general recommendations can be made. Instead, context-specific strategies seem necessary. Alternative approaches tackling socioecological determinants of ill health are needed for long-term sustainability. Future research could benefit from contributions of non-Western philosophies and perspectives by local researchers.

Ethical challenges and moral distress among field epidemiologists

Background

As ‘disease detectives’ and directors of public health programs, field epidemiologists play essential roles in protecting public health. Although ethical issues receive considerable attention in medical and research settings, less is known about ethical challenges faced by field epidemiologists in public health programs. Similarly, little is known about moral distress among field epidemiologists, i.e., situations in which they are constrained from acting on what they know to be morally right. Moral distress is strongly associated with empathy fatigue, burnout, reduced job retention, and disengagement. To better understand ethics training needs for field epidemiologists, in February 2019, members of TEPHIConnect, an online and mobile networking platform for Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP) alumni, were invited to participate in an anonymous survey about ethical challenges and moral distress.

Results

Among 126 respondents from 54 countries, leading causes of ethical dilemmas included inadequate informed consent (61%), inequitable allocation of resources (49%), and conflicts of interest (43%). These occur primarily in settings of disease outbreaks (60%); research (55%); and public health programs at the state, province, or national level (45%) or community level (43%). Work-related moral distress was reported by 91% of respondents, including 26% who experience it “frequently” or “almost always.” Field epidemiologists working in low- and low-middle income countries were more likely to report moral distress “frequently” or “almost always” than those in higher-income countries (33.0% vs 9.1%, P = 0.006). The most common perceived contributors to moral distress included excessive stress and work demands (30%) and inadequate support from leaders (25%).

Conclusions

Field epidemiologists face significant work-related ethical challenges, which are endemic to public health and political systems. A substantial proportion of field epidemiologists also experience some degree of moral distress, often in association with these challenges. These findings indicate an unmet need among field epidemiologists for support in navigating ethical challenges, as well as for resources to address the human and professional consequences of moral distress.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-12950-2.

Potential Capacity of China's development assistance for health on neglected tropical diseases

Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are important health problem in tropical and sub-tropical regions, which afflict more than a billion people worldwide and cause several million deaths every year, especially in Africa. The World Health Organization has called for global efforts to control and eliminate NTDs. China began its health assistance program from 1950s, especially on medical mission dispatched to more than 50 African countries. In this study, a SWOT analysis was used to analyze the current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of China's health assistance relating to NTDs, in order to provide the recommendation to promote the activities on international assistance and cooperation on NTDs. Based on this analysis, interventions for NTDs and suggestions for future cooperation relating to NTDs are proposed. In the context of global health, China should strengthen and improve the capacity on health assistance for NTDs control.