Asian Journal of Research in Infectious Diseases

Climate Change, Ecosystem Loss, and Emerging Infectious Diseases in Nigeria

2026-10-17T09:45:51+00:00

Climate change and ecosystem degradation can affect infectious-disease hazards, human exposure and the recognition of outbreaks, but the direction and strength of those influences differ among pathogens. Nigeria provides a pertinent setting because reservoir-associated infections, mosquito-borne diseases, waterborne outbreaks and climatically sensitive respiratory infections occur across contrasting ecological zones and unequal healthcare environments. This critical narrative review evaluates literature on climatic variability, land-use change, biodiversity, transmission ecology and disease surveillance, giving priority to Nigerian empirical work and using regional or global studies to clarify mechanisms rather than substitute for local evidence. The strongest environment-linked Nigerian analyses concern Lassa fever, whose geographical incidence correlates with climate, land use and socioeconomic factors, although retrospective prediction does not establish prospective forecast utility. Rodent field studies show that seasonal host abundance and viral detection do not necessarily move together. Dengue investigations identify under-recognised febrile illness and competent mosquito habitats, but antibody, vector and molecular results have different inferential meanings. Yellow fever patterns are inseparable from immunity and surveillance selection. For cholera, floods and climatic anomalies interact with water-system failures, displacement and sanitation disadvantage; direct attribution to ecosystem loss remains limited. Meningitis and mpox further illustrate the danger of extending one ecological mechanism across fundamentally different transmission systems. Persistent limitations include spatial aggregation, incomplete diagnostic denominators, heterogeneous environmental measurements and scarce longitudinal linkage of ecosystem disturbance, infected hosts and confirmed human infection. The synthesis argues for pathogen-specific One Health monitoring, prospective ecological–clinical cohorts, out-of-sample validation of warnings and controlled evaluation of water, vector and household interventions. Climate adaptation and ecosystem protection offer important opportunities, but infectious-disease benefits should be demonstrated rather than presumed.

WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) Deficits and Infectious Disease Burden in Urban Slums: A Cross-sectional Survey of Households in Nigeria

2026-10-15T11:09:04+00:00

Background: Urban informal settlements frequently experience inadequate water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services, increasing exposure to enteric and environmentally mediated infections. Multi-city primary data linking household WASH conditions with disease outcomes in Nigerian slum communities remain limited.

Objectives: To describe WASH access and water quality in selected slum communities in Lagos, Kano, and Port Harcourt; estimate household-reported 30-day occurrence of selected WASH-related illnesses; describe soil-transmitted helminth positivity among stool-tested participants; and examine associations between selected WASH exposures and disease outcomes.

Methods: A multi-site cross-sectional household survey was conducted from January to August 2024. A total of 1,157 households were enrolled through stratified cluster sampling. Drinking-water microbiology was assessed in 580 sampled households, and 648 consenting household members provided stool specimens for Kato-Katz examination. Multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for household income, caregiver education, household size, number of children younger than five years, and city of residence.

Results: Household WASH conditions were poor: 37.4% of households practised open defecation, 10.5% had a functioning handwashing station with soap and water, and 63.8% of point-of-use water samples exceeded the study microbiological threshold. Household-reported 30-day diarrhoeal episodes occurred in 35.3% of households, while the combined suspected/confirmed typhoid outcome occurred in 19.1%. Among the 648 stool-tested participants, 478 were Kato-Katz positive for at least one soil-transmitted helminth (73.8%). Unimproved water source was associated with diarrhoea (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.10, 95% CI 3.90-6.70), open drainage within 50 m with suspected cholera (aOR 4.20, 95% CI 3.10-5.70), and absence of household sanitation with the combined typhoid outcome (aOR 3.80, 95% CI 2.60-5.40).

Conclusion: In the surveyed communities, multiple WASH deficits co-occurred with substantial burdens of household-reported enteric illness and microbiological contamination. The cross-sectional design supports association rather than causation, but the findings identify potentially actionable deficits in water quality, sanitation, hygiene, and household water handling.

Knowledge, Attitudes and Perceptions of Health Professionals in Senegal Regarding the One Health Approach : A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study

2026-10-17T06:32:47+00:00

Introduction: The 'One Health' approach recognises the interdependence between human health, animal health, and ecosystem health. Implementing this approach requires institutional policies, a sound understanding of the concept among health professionals, and effective collaboration across sectors. Data on the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of health professionals regarding this approach remain limited in Senegal.

Objective: To describe the knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, and practices of healthcare professionals in Senegal regarding the “One Health” approach, as well as their views on intersectoral collaboration and implementation priorities.

Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among healthcare professionals in Senegal. Sociodemographic and professional characteristics, knowledge of the One Health concept and of interactions between human, animal, and environmental health, perceptions, attitudes towards intersectoral collaboration, knowledge of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), individual practices, and perceived priorities for implementing One Health were assessed. Data were analysed using counts, proportions, means, and standard deviations, and a knowledge score based on 23 items was calculated.

Results: The mean age was 32.7 ± 5.6 years. Physicians accounted for 32.8% of participants, community health workers for 31.3%, nurses for 20.8%, and pharmacists for 13.9%. A total of 259 health professionals were included. The majority (78.0%) had already heard of One Health, and 76.8% defined the concept as an approach integrating human, animal, and environmental health. The mean knowledge score was 82.2 ± 10.5%, with a median of 82.6%. Most participants recognised interactions between the different components of One Health. Regarding AMR, 83.4% had already heard of the phenomenon, and 70.7% thought it concerned humans, animals, and the environment. The need for cross-sectoral collaboration was acknowledged, but 59.5% felt that current collaboration was either non-existent or weak. Simultaneous collaboration among the three sectors was considered necessary by 77.2% of participants.

Conclusion: The healthcare professionals surveyed demonstrated a high level of declarative knowledge of the One Health concept and acknowledged the interdependence of human health, animal health, and the environment. However, perceptions of the current level of cross-sectoral collaboration revealed a gap between understanding the concept and implementing it in practice. Strengthening practical training, integrated surveillance, data sharing, and cross-sectoral collaboration should be prioritised.