How public health crises expose systemic, day-to-day health inequalities in low- and-middle income countries: an example from East Africa.

BACKGROUND: The current Coronavirus disease pandemic reveals political and structural inequities of the world's poorest people who have little or no access to health care and yet the largest burdens of poor health. This is in parallel to a more persistent but silent global health crisis, antimicrobial resistance (AMR). We explore the fundamental challenges of health care in humans and animals in relation to AMR in Tanzania. METHODS: We conducted 57 individual interviews and focus groups with providers and patients in high, middle and lower tier health care facilities and communities across three regions of Tanzania between April 2019 and February 2020. We covered topics from health infrastructure and prescribing practices to health communication and patient experiences. RESULTS: Three interconnected themes emerged about systemic issues impacting health. First, there are challenges around infrastructure and availability of vital resources such as healthcare staff and supplies. Second, health outcomes are predicated on patient and provider access to services as well as social determinants of health. Third, health communication is critical in defining trusted sources of information, and narratives of blame emerge around health outcomes with the onus of responsibility for action falling on individuals. CONCLUSION: Entanglements between infrastructure, access and communication exist while constraints in the health system lead to poor health outcomes even in 'normal' circumstances. These are likely to be relevant across the globe and highly topical for addressing pressing global health challenges. Redressing structural health inequities can better equip countries and their citizens to not only face pandemics but also day-to-day health challenges.

"He Who Relies on His Brother's Property Dies Poor": The Complex Narratives of Livestock Care in Northern Tanzania.

Background: Endemic zoonoses have important impacts for livestock-dependent households in East Africa. In these communities, people's health and livelihoods are severely affected by livestock disease losses. Understanding how livestock keepers undertake remedial actions for livestock illness has the potential for widespread benefits such as improving health interventions. Yet, studies about livestock and human health behaviours in the global south tend to focus on individual health choices. In reality, health behaviours are complex, and not solely about individualised health experiences. Rather, they are mediated by a range of "upstream" factors (such as unequal provision of services), which are beyond the control of the individual. Methods: This paper presents qualitative research conducted from 2014 to 2019 for a study focused on the Social, Economic, and Environmental Drivers of Zoonoses in Tanzania (SEEDZ). Qualitative data were collected via focus group discussions, community meetings, informal interviews, formal in-depth interviews, observations and surveys that addressed issues of health, disease, zoonotic disease risks, and routes for treatment across 21 villages. Thematic analysis was carried out on in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. Conceptual analyses and observations were made through application of social science theories of health. Findings: Livestock keepers undertake a range of health seeking strategies loosely categorised around self and formal treatment. Two key themes emerged that are central to why people make the decisions they do: access to resources and trust in health care providers. These two issues affect individual sense of agency which impacts their ability to act to improve livestock health outcomes. We suggest that individual choice and agency in veterinary health seeking decisions are only beneficial if health systems can offer adequate care and health equity is addressed. Significance: This study demonstrates the value of in-depth qualitative research which reveals the nuance and complexity of people's decisions around livestock health. Most importantly, it explains why "better" knowledge does not always translate into "better" practise. The paper suggests that acknowledging and addressing these aspects of veterinary health seeking will lead to more effective provision.

Mixed Methods Survey of Zoonotic Disease Awareness and Practice among Animal and Human Healthcare Providers in Moshi, Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Zoonoses are common causes of human and livestock illness in Tanzania. Previous studies have shown that brucellosis, leptospirosis, and Q fever account for a large proportion of human febrile illness in northern Tanzania, yet they are infrequently diagnosed. We conducted this study to assess awareness and knowledge regarding selected zoonoses among healthcare providers in Moshi, Tanzania; to determine what diagnostic and treatment protocols are utilized; and obtain insights into contextual factors contributing to the apparent under-diagnosis of zoonoses. METHODOLOGY/RESULTS: We conducted a questionnaire about zoonoses knowledge, case reporting, and testing with 52 human health practitioners and 10 livestock health providers. Immediately following questionnaire administration, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 60 of these respondents, using the findings of a previous fever etiology study to prompt conversation. Sixty respondents (97%) had heard of brucellosis, 26 (42%) leptospirosis, and 20 (32%) Q fever. Animal sector respondents reported seeing cases of animal brucellosis (4), rabies (4), and anthrax (3) in the previous 12 months. Human sector respondents reported cases of human brucellosis (15, 29%), rabies (9, 18%) and anthrax (6, 12%). None reported leptospirosis or Q fever cases. Nineteen respondents were aware of a local diagnostic test for human brucellosis. Reports of tests for human leptospirosis or Q fever, or for any of the study pathogens in animals, were rare. Many respondents expressed awareness of malaria over-diagnosis and zoonoses under-diagnosis, and many identified low knowledge and testing capacity as reasons for zoonoses under-diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed differences in knowledge of different zoonoses and low case report frequencies of brucellosis, leptospirosis, and Q fever. There was a lack of known diagnostic services for leptospirosis and Q fever. These findings emphasize a need for improved diagnostic capacity alongside healthcare provider education and improved clinical guidelines for syndrome-based disease management to provoke diagnostic consideration of locally relevant zoonoses in the absence of laboratory confirmation.