Talk:Neglected tropical diseases
|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Sanitation||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|This article is/was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2014. Further details are available on the course page.|
|To-do list for Neglected tropical diseases:|
Add sections or text on:
removal of false information
I corrected several wrong statements about protozan infections. Neither of the infections caused by trypanosomatids is transmited by a mosquito and there is no vaccine for Chagas disease as far as I know. Guido
- You are correct; there is no Chagas vaccine, though HAT and Chagas are both transmitted by insect bite (but not mosquito, as you said) OcciMoron 02:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia could benefit from a neglected disease wikiproject. How does one go about starting one? OcciMoron 03:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nice thinking. Hmm.. Wikipedia:WikiProject is the obvious starting point.. but from the proposals page it sounds like you'd be better off starting a task force within an existing project like WikiProject Medicine. I guess the first thing to do is make this article part of that project somehow. —Pengo 14:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Can you explain why you think a task force is a better idea? It's not entirely clear to me. OcciMoron 14:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals says: "If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc), or your idea is a variation on a common theme, consider starting a task force of an existing project instead of a whole new WikiProject." I'm thinking that neglected diseases has a fairly limited scope. But then again, setting up a WikiProject still doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me either. So either way, really. —Pengo 13:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- From some brief work I've done in neglected disease, I can pretty safely say that it isn't all that narrow. Awareness of neglected disease is increasing, there are new governmental initiatives, a PLoS journal is launching in the fall dealing with NTDs specifically, etc. etc. Neglected disease has a lot of public policy and public health aspects that are as yet unrecognized by wikipedia, and there are other things too. If I find the time, I'll definitely try and turn this into a Wikiproject. OcciMoron 15:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that this page could benefit from descriptions of:
- Key Players in combating neglected diseases, specifically public, private, and academic groups in addition to public-private partnerships
- Some general facts about the disease burden of neglected diseases and geographic distribution
- A history of how these diseases came to be neglected; i.e., "history"
- The current state of neglected disease efforts
- How governments are responding
I will be trying to add these over time, but it will be a difficult process, so any help would be appreciated. If you need guidance, I have done a lot of fact-finding about NTDs, so just ask and I may be able to point you towards a source of information. OcciMoron 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've added the above to a "to do" list above. It's not as good as adding the actual information, but well.. it's a to do list. —Pengo 06:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Removing the cause
At the tropical disease talk i placed this section below; I think that the tropical disease article should be moved and altered as diseases occuring in the tropics have nothing to do with the climate (rather the reasons mentioned below have, and perhaps its true that certain organisms as mosquitos may survive only in the tropics; this still has nothing to do with the virus/bacteria itself; the mosquito only carries the bacteria/virus):
I think the tropical disease article should be moved. It is discriminating to use the term tropical disease; this implies that the diseases mentioned do not occur in temperate zone (which is incorrect; eg malaria was previously occuring in the Netherlands, leishmaniasis occurs in italy, ...) and the creation of this article further increases the insight of many that most of the diseases occur in the tropics; which is not accurate. Probably one of the key reasons why certain diseases still prevail in the tropics is because the pharmaceutical companies have only been intrested in eliminating diseases in the temperate (rich) countries (eg polio), and are now shifting to other lucrative problems (eg viagra). Other reasons are probably high population density (see this article) additional factors as weak hygiene and sanitation; which is a social/economical problem and has nothing to do with the climatological situation.
The first line for the neglected disease article should be something like: Neglected diseases are diseases that have been neglected by pharmaceutical companies and the local population and which are gaining ever more ground in large areas. Neglection by pharamaceutical companies is primarily the objection of making any vaccins or medicinal drugs against the diseases at all, while the indiginous population itself has not given enough attention to personal hygiene, protection from insect bites/stings, and a failure of setting up good sanitation (such as covered sewage canals, ...)
I think such article is far more fair and objective (does not put any group in favor; neither the west or the locals) and subtracts diseases from climate
I recommend that atleast the root causes are mentioned in the article; this article kinda places all the fault with the pharmaceutical companies, which too is not objective —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
independence from 'tropics'
i agree that article should abstract from 'tropics' and neglected diseases are those plainly neglected by public attention from various reasons.
those can include i.e. inapropriate media attention, plain ignorance, or being 'taboo' related like STD's.
Picture of boy from Panama
Unfortunately, the caption reads, in part, "It has manifested as an acute infection with swelling of the right eye (chagoma)." Because this is a photograph, the boy's right and left are reversed, and it appears that his left eye is significantly larger than his right. I'm wondering if the picture should be re-reversed to accurately portray the eye swelling. Of course, a simpler solution would be to remove the reference to his "right" eye, which isn't particularly necessary or useful. Cuvtixo (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problems with the change, but just letting you know I copied the image and caption from the Chagas disease article so you might want to check that too. (Actually, it seems the caption was taken from CDC's Public Health Image Library, where the image was originally sourced.) —Pengo 01:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Plans for Editing Article
I am an undergraduate student at Rice University in Houston, TX and am planning on editing this article as part of a Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities class. I would like to expand this article and add more information about the specific diseases and their sociological impact. I will try to address the “to do” list goals. I am also considering combining this page with the “Neglected tropical disease research and development” article. Does this seem like a good idea? I think there is a lot of information about neglected tropical diseases, but I don’t think that splitting the topic in two makes sense since both articles are missing a lot of important information. I plan on using scholarly articles as my sources.
I understand the reasoning behind removing the “tropical” aspect of neglected tropical diseases, but since this is a specific term for a category of diseases recognized by the WHO, CDC, and many researchers, that occur primarily in the tropics, I think it is better to keep the term “tropical” in the title. I will, however, research whether there are any other diseases that “neglected” by the neglected tropical disease category.
Summary of comments/feedback
Hi Julianna! I think the additions you have made to the article so far are great. You manage to maintain a neutral tone, keep good formatting, and include a variety of sources on the topic. My main criticisms are that the article needs more images (both photos and graphs to give the reader a comprehensive visual of the topic) and needs to be more comprehensive. I think you do a great job describing the diseases themselves (in terms of prevalence, symptoms, etiology, treatments, etc), but there is a lot more that could be said about the social and economic impact. For example, you mention that decreased school performance/attendance is a consequence of NTD’s. Can you expand more on that? What are the consequences of this decline in education for these already impoverished individuals? Are women more affected by NTD’s than men? What is the economic burden on developing countries due to loss of productivity from these diseases? Finally, I think the sections about the individual diseases could benefit from being organized into a table for ease of reading. I am excited to see where your article is headed!
- I also think it is a nice article. I also thought some more photos could be good, however there is the consideration that some of the diseases already have their own Wikipedia article, for example the disease soil-transmitted helminthiasis. Therefore, I would argue not to go into too much depth for that disease but to rather make sure people realise that they can find more information about that disease on the other Wikipedia page. Otherwise - if we described the disease also here in detail - then it would be doubling of efforts to keep both pages up to date.
- Perhaps this page should rather focus more on the institutional aspects (why have these diseases been neglected), the global and national initiatives in place to tackle them, the costs it would take and the possible economic gains; the role of poor sanitation, poverty, inequity, gender issues - which is a root cause or compounding factor for many of these diseases.
- So I guess what I am saying: rather than focussing more on each of these individual diseases in depth, look for the common elements for all of them in terms of preventation (and cure); e.g. access to safe sanitation would be one of them. EvM-Susana (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Julianna! Great job with your article! As far as editing, I think that more consistency with the complete sentences or not would be good and then consistency with the lists of information for each disease with the same topics in the same order would be greatly helpful to readability and formatting consistency. Also, I’m sure there are some great graphics showing disease, as well as maps which would really add to your article. Great job! Cnicholson12 (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Put information on four causative pathogens back in
Someone deleted this part from the lead recently: These diseases result from four different causative pathogens: (i) Protozoa (Chagas disease, Human African trypanosomiasis, Leishmaniases); (ii) Bacteria (Buruli ulcer, Leprosy, Trachoma, Yaws), (iii) Helminth Cysticercosis/Taeniasis, Dracunculiasis, Echinococcosis, Foodborne trematodiases Lymphatic filariasis, Onchocerciasis, Schistosomiasis, Soil-transmitted helminthiases); and (iv) Virus (Dengue and Chikungunya, Rabies). I am not an expert on NTDs but this information and grouping seemed quite relevant for me. Shouldn't it be put back in? Perhaps not in the lead but somewhere in the article? EvM-Susana (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)