Migration, prospecting, dispersal? What host movement matters for infectious agent circulation?

Spatial disease ecology is emerging as a new field that requires the integration of complementary approaches to address how the distribution and movements of hosts and parasites may condition the dynamics of their interactions. In this context, migration, the seasonal movement of animals to different zones of their distribution, is assumed to play a key role in the broad scale circulation of parasites and pathogens. Nevertheless, migration is not the only type of host movement that can influence the spatial ecology, evolution, and epidemiology of infectious diseases. Dispersal, the movement of individuals between the location where they were born or bred to a location where they breed, has attracted attention as another important type of movement for the spatial dynamics of infectious diseases. Host dispersal has notably been identified as a key factor for the evolution of host-parasite interactions as it implies gene flow among local host populations and thus can alter patterns of coevolution with infectious agents across spatial scales. However, not all movements between host populations lead to dispersal per se. One type of host movement that has been neglected, but that may also play a role in parasite spread is prospecting, i.e., movements targeted at selecting and securing new habitat for future breeding. Prospecting movements, which have been studied in detail in certain social species, could result in the dispersal of infectious agents among different host populations without necessarily involving host dispersal. In this article, we outline how these various types of host movements might influence the circulation of infectious disease agents and discuss methodological approaches that could be used to assess their importance. We specifically focus on examples from work on colonial seabirds, ticks, and tick-borne infectious agents. These are convenient biological models because they are strongly spatially structured and involve relatively simple communities of interacting species. Overall, this review emphasizes that explicit consideration of the behavioral and population ecology of hosts and parasites is required to disentangle the relative roles of different types of movement for the spread of infectious diseases.

Adolescent’s subjective perceptions of chronic disease and related psychosocial factors: Highlights from an outpatient context study

Background: Adolescents with chronic disease (CD) can be more vulnerable to adverse psychosocial outcomes. This study aims: 1) to identify differences in psychosocial variables (health-related quality of life, psychosomatic complaints, resilience, self-regulation and social support) among adolescents who feel that CD affects or does not affect school/peers connectedness (measured by self-reported participation in school and social activities); and 2) to assess the extent to which psychosocial variables are associated with connectedness in school and peer domains. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 135 adolescents with CD (51.9% boys), average age of 14 ± 1. 5 years old (SD = 1.5). Socio-demographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables were assessed, using a self-reported questionnaire, which included the Chronic Conditions Short Questionnaire, KIDSCREEN-10 Index, Symptoms Check-List, Healthy Kids Resilience Assessment Module Scale, Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory, and Satisfaction with Social Support Scale. Descriptive statistics, GLM-Univariate ANCOVA and Logistic Regression were performed using the IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 22.0. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. Results: Thirteen to eighteen percent of the adolescents felt that CD affected participation at school (PSCH) and participation in leisure time with friends (PLTF). These adolescents presented lower results for all psychosocial study variables, when compared with adolescents who did not feel affected in both areas of participation. From the studied psychosocial variables, the most important ones associated with PSCH (after controlling for age, gender, diagnosis, and education level of father/mother) were self-regulation and psychosomatic health. Concerning the PLTF, social support was the sole variable explaining such association. Conclusions: The present study pointed out the association between psychosocial variables; and living with a CD and school/peers connectedness. The need to focus on the assessment of the effects of a CD on adolescents’ lives and contexts is suggested, as well as on the identification of vulnerable adolescents. Such identification could help to facilitate the maximization of social participation of adolescents with CD, and to plan interventions centered on providing support and opportunities for a healthy youth development. For that purpose, a complex and multifactorial approach that includes clinicians, schools, family, and peers may be proposed.