Department of Health, Ethics & Society, Care and Public Health Research Institute CAPHRI, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Centre for Infectious Diseases, Epidemiology and Surveillance, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Ann Glob Health. 2022 Jul 26;88(1):59. doi: 10.5334/aogh.3672. eCollection 2022.
Climate change, environmental change, and globalization affect the geographical distribution of vector-borne diseases. Temperate regions should be prepared for emerging diseases and learn from each other's experiences.
The vector-borne disease preparedness in two regions, Beijing and the Netherlands, were compared in order understand their similarities and differences leading to learning points on this complex topic.
A comparative study was performed using interviews with vector-borne disease experts from Beijing and the Netherlands and supplemented by literature.
In Beijing, syndromic surveillance is a priority for the identification of suspected vector-borne disease cases. In the Netherlands, the main surveillance emphasis is on laboratory confirmed vector-borne disease cases. Vector-surveillance at potential points of entry and other high-risk locations is performed according to the International Health Regulation (2005) in both settings. Beijing controls invasive and native mosquitos, which is not the case in the Netherlands. In Beijing, vector surveillance is performed to measure mosquito density around hospitals, this is not observed in the Dutch setting. Health risks posed by ticks are a priority in urban areas in the Netherlands, and the public is educated in self-protection. In contrast, ticks seem to occur less often in Beijing's urban areas.
The vector-borne disease context framework allowed us to compare the vector-borne disease preparedness between Beijing and the Netherlands, despite differences in vector-borne disease challenges. We can learn valuable lessons concerning surveillance and early detection of emerging vector-borne diseases when comparing the preparedness between different regions.
气候变化、环境变化和全球化影响了媒介传播疾病的地理分布。温带地区应该为新出现的疾病做好准备，并相互学习经验。
为了了解北京和荷兰在媒介传播疾病准备方面的异同，从而获得有关这一复杂主题的学习要点，对这两个地区的媒介传播疾病准备情况进行了比较。
采用访谈的方法，对来自北京和荷兰的媒介传播疾病专家进行了比较研究，并辅以文献资料。
在北京，综合征监测是识别疑似媒介传播疾病病例的优先事项。在荷兰，主要监测重点是实验室确诊的媒介传播疾病病例。根据《国际卫生条例（2005 年）》，在这两个地区都在潜在入境点和其他高风险地点进行媒介监测。北京控制入侵和本地蚊子，而荷兰则不然。在北京，进行媒介监测是为了测量医院周围蚊子的密度，而在荷兰则没有这种情况。在荷兰，城市地区的蜱虫健康风险是优先事项，公众接受自我保护教育。相比之下，在北京的城市地区，蜱似乎不太常见。
媒介传播疾病背景框架使我们能够比较北京和荷兰的媒介传播疾病准备情况，尽管媒介传播疾病的挑战存在差异。通过比较不同地区的准备情况，我们可以学习到有关监测和早期发现新出现的媒介传播疾病的宝贵经验。
