Skip to main content

Impact of climate change on infectious diseases in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East Region

The Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East (EMME) region has rapid population growth, large differences in socio-economic levels between developed and developing countries, migration, increased water demand, and ecosystems degradation. The region is experiencing a significant warming trend with longer and warmer summers, increased frequency and severity of heat waves, and a drier climate. Our paper in the Climate Change journal discusses the impact of climate change on infectious diseases in the region.

While climate change plays an important role in contributing to political instability in the region through displacement of people, food insecurity, and increased violence, it also increases the risks of vector-, water-, and food-borne diseases. Poorer and less educated people, young children and the elderly, migrants, and those with long-term health problems are at highest risk. A result of the inequalities among EMME countries is an inconsistency in the availability of reliable evidence about the impacts on infectious diseases. 

To help address this gap, a search of the literature was conducted as a basis for related recommended responses and suggested actions for preparedness and prevention. Since climate change already impacts the health of vulnerable populations in the EMME and will have a greater impact in future years, risk assessment and timely design and implementation of health preparedness and adaptation strategies are essential. 

Joint national and cross-border infectious diseases management systems for more effective preparedness and prevention are needed, supported by interventions that improve the environment. Without such cooperation and effective interventions, climate change will lead to an increasing morbidity and mortality in the EMME from infectious diseases, with a higher risk for the most vulnerable populations.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03300-z

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

Talking to Patients About Weight-Loss Drugs

The use of weight-loss drugs such as GLP-1 receptor agonists (e.g., semaglutide, tirzepatide) has increased rapidly in recent years. These drugs can help some people achieve significant weight reduction, but they are not suitable for everyone and require careful counselling before starting treatment. By discussing benefits, risks, practicalities, and  uncertainties, clinicians can help patients make informed, realistic decisions about their treatment. Key points to discuss with patients 1. Indications and eligibility These drugs are usually licensed for adults with a specific BMI. They should be used alongside lifestyle interventions such as dietary change, increased physical activity, and behaviour modification. 2. Potential side effects – some can be serious Common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal discomfort. Less common but more serious risks include gallstones, pancreatitis and visual problems. Patients should know what to watch for a...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abolishing NHS England will make only modest savings

Abolishing NHS England and reducing Integrated Care Board (ICB) staffing by 50% may appear substantial, but the projected savings - around £500 million annually if fully achieved - would represent only a modest increase (approximately 0.25%) in annual NHS funding in England, given the NHS England budget is approaching £200 billion per year. Evidence from past NHS reforms (like the 2012 Health and Social Care Act) shows mixed results; some efficiency gains but often offset by new layers of complexity elsewhere in NHS structures. Without parallel initiatives to streamline administrative processes, improve efficiency, and enhance clinical productivity, such structural changes to NHS England and ICBs alone will not significantly improve frontline clinical care or health outcomes. Administrative costs, while important to minimise, make up a relatively small proportion of the overall NHS budget. Genuine productivity gains will therefore require systematic reforms aimed at reducing unnecessar...
Post a Comment
Read more