Nowhere to hide: informal disease surveillance networks tracing state behaviour

Since the revisions to the International Health Regulations (IHR) in 2005, much attention has turned to how states, particularly developing states, will address core capacity requirements attached to the revised IHR. Primarily, how will states strengthen their capacity to identify and verify public health emergencies of international concern (PHEIC)? Another important but under-examined aspect of the revised IHR is the empowerment of the World Health Organization (WHO) to act upon non-governmental reports of disease outbreaks. The revised IHR potentially marks a new chapter in the powers of ‘disease intelligence’ and how the WHO may press states to verify an outbreak event. This article seeks to understand whether internet surveillance response programs (ISRPs) are effective in ‘naming and shaming’ states into reporting disease outbreaks.

The challenge to know and control: Disease outbreak surveillance and alerts in China and India

Since the revisions to the International Health Regulations (IHR) in 2005, much attention has been turned to how states, particularly developing states, will address core capacity requirements. The question often examined is how states with poor health systems can strengthen their capacity to identify and verify public health emergencies of international concern. A core capacity requirement is that by 2012 states will have a surveillance and response network that operates from the local community to the national level. Much emphasis has turned to the health system capacity required for this task. In this article, I seek to understand the political capacity to perform this task. This article considers how the world's two most populous states,1 1. For the purposes of this paper, I use the word ‘state’ as a shorthand for the nation-state of China and India, or member state as used by the United Nations. View all notes China and India, have sought to communicate outbreak events in times of crisis and calm. I consider what this reporting performance tells us of their capacity to meet their IHR obligations given the two countries differing political institutions.

The duty to report disease outbreaks : of interest or value? Lessons from H5N1

Since the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2003, it has been argued that there has been a substantial revision to the norm dictating the behaviour of states in the event of a disease outbreak. This article examines the evolution of the norm to ‘report and verify’ disease outbreaks and evaluates the extent to which this revised norm has begun to guide state behaviour. Examination of select East Asian countries affected by human infections of the H5N1 (avian influenza) virus strain reveals the need to further understand the mutually constitutive relationship between the value attached to prompt reporting against the capacity to report, and how states manage both in fulfilling their duty to report.

Securitizing infectious disease

Over the past decade there has been an increased awareness in the field of international relations of the potential impact of an infectious disease epidemic on national security. While states’ attempts to combat infectious disease have a long history, what is new in this area is the adoption at the international level of securitized responses regarding the containment of infectious disease. This article argues that the securitization of infectious disease by states and the World Health Organization (WHO) has led to two key developments. First, the WHO has had to assert itself as the primary actor that all states, particularly western states, can rely upon to contain the threat of infectious diseases. The WHO's apparent success in this is evidenced by the development of the Global Outbreak Alert Response Network (GOARN), which has led to arguments that the WHO has emerged as the key authority in global health governance. The second outcome that this article seeks to explore is the development of the WHO's authority in the area of infectious disease surveillance. In particular, is GOARN a representation of the WHO's consummate authority in the area of coordinating infectious disease response or is GOARN the product of the WHO's capitulation to western states’ concerns with preventing infectious disease outbreaks from reaching their borders and as a result, are arguments expressing the authority of the WHO in infectious disease response premature?

The international politics of disease reporting : towards post-Westphalianism?

Since the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003, there has been much discussion about whether the international community has moved into a new post-Westphalian era, where states increasingly recognize certain shared norms that guide what they ought to do in responding to infectious disease outbreaks. In this article I identify this new obligation as the ‘duty to report’, and examine competing accounts on the degree to which states appreciate this new obligation are considered by examining state behaviour during the H5N1 human infectious outbreaks in East Asia (since 2004). The article examines reporting behaviour for H5N1 human infectious cases in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam from 2004 to 2010. The findings lend strong support to the claim that East Asian states have come to accept and comply with the duty to report infectious disease outbreaks and that the assertions of sovereignty in response to global health governance frameworks have not systematically inhibited reporting compliance.

Graft versus host disease in oncology nursing practice

INTRODUCTION: Gastrointestinal graft-versus-host disease (GI-GvHD) is extremely debilitating and is multifactorial in its causative factors, management and treatment. It is an exaggeration of normal physiological mechanisms wherein the donor immune system attempts to rid itself of the host. The inflammatory process that follows has the benefit of providing an anti-tumour effect for many diseases, but unfortunately in patients undergoing human stem-cell transplantation, the nature of the inflammation can result in disability, wasting and death. AIM: The aim of this article is to discuss the pathophysiology of this often misunderstood or misdiagnosed condition, as well as its signs and symptoms, management and considerations for nursing care. Considerations for nursing practice: While the medical management is aimed at minimising GvHD through the reduction of T-cell production and proliferation and gastrointestinal decolonisation, the nursing care is often focused on the signs and symptoms that can have the most prominent impact on patients. CONCLUSION: GI-GvHD has serious life-threatening complications, namely wasting syndrome, diarrhoea and dehydration. The basis of signs and symptomology is easily recognisable owing to the stages of progression through the human stem-cell transplantation process. Oncology nurses are in a prime position to identify these serious risks, initiate treatment immediately and collaborate effectively within the multidisciplinary team to minimise GvHD onset and provide expert support to patients, family and caregivers.