Socio-economic factors in the differential upsurge of tick-borne encephalitis in Central and Eastern Europe

Reviews in Medical Virology

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 81-95

  Šumilo, Dana ^a   Bormane, Antra ^b   Asokliene, Loreta ^c   Vasilenko, Veera ^d   Golovljova, Irina ^d   Avsic Zupanc, Tatjana ^e   Hubalek, Zdenek ^f   Randolph, Sarah E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b Public Health Agency   (Latvia)

^c Centre for Communicable Diseases Prevention and Control   (Lithuania)

^d NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH DEVELOPMENT   (Estonia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

^f INSTITUTE OF VERTEBRATE BIOLOGY   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PESTICIDE;

AGRICULTURE; CLIMATE CHANGE; CZECH REPUBLIC; ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE; EUROPE; HUMAN; IXODES RICINUS; LATVIA; LITHUANIA; LOWEST INCOME GROUP; POLLUTION; POVERTY; REVIEW; SLOVENIA; SOCIOECONOMICS; TICK; TICK BORNE ENCEPHALITIS; UNEMPLOYMENT; USSR; WILDLIFE; ZOONOSIS;

AGRICULTURE; ANIMALS; ENCEPHALITIS VIRUSES, TICK-BORNE; ENCEPHALITIS, TICK-BORNE; EUROPE, EASTERN; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; IXODES; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 40949089282     PISSN: 10529276     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.566     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. MacLehose L, McKee M, Weinberg J. Responding to the challenge of communicable disease in Europe. Science 2002; 295: 2047-2050.
2. Hubalek Z. Emerging human infectious disease: anthroponoses, zoonoses, and sapronoses. Emerg Infect Dis 2003; 9: 403-404.
3. Randolph SE. The shifting landscape of tick-borne zoonoses: tick-borne encephalitis and Lyme borreliosis in Europe. Phil Trans Roy Soc B 2001; 356: 1045-1056.
4. Randolph SE, Šumilo D. Tick-borne encephalitis in Europe: dynamics of changing risk. In Emerging Pests and Vector-borne Disease in Europe, Takken W, Knols BGJ (eds). Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2007; 187-206.
5. Heinz FX, Holzmann H, Essl A, Kundi M. Field effectiveness of vaccination against tick-borne encephalitis. Vaccine 2007; 25: 7550-7567.
6. Neiders L, Eglite S. [New economics development policy and praxis in Latvia] (in Latvian). In Problems of Restructuring Latvian Economics in the Conditions of New Economics, Škapars R, Šumilo E (eds). University of Latvia: Riga, 2005; 29-66.
7. Korenberg EI, Kovaleskii YV. Main features of tick-borne encephalitis eco-epidemiology in Russia. Zentrbl Bakteriol 1999; 289: 525-539.
8. Randolph SE, Green RM, Peacey MF, et al. Seasonal synchrony: the key to tick-borne encephalitis foci identified by satellite data. Parasitology 2000; 121: 15-23.
9. Randolph SE. Tick ecology: processes and patterns behind the epidemiological risk posed by ixodid ticks as vectors. Parasitology 2004; 129b: S37-66.
10. Bormane A, Lucenko I, Duks A, et al. Vectors of tick-borne diseases and epidemiological situation in Latvia in 1993-2002. Int J Med Microbiol 2004; 293 (Supl 37): 36-17.
11. Labuda M, Nuttall PA, Kozuch O, et al. Non-viraemic transmission of tick-borne encephalitis virus: a mechanism for arbovirus survival in nature. Experientia 1993; 49: 802-805.
12. Dumpis U, Crook D, Oksi J. Tick-borne encephalitis. Clin Infect Dis 1999; 28: 882-890.
13. SKDS MaPORC. [Investigation into the factors hindering immunisations of the population against diphtheria and tick-borne encephalitis] (in Latvian). National Public Health Agency SKDS, Latvia: Riga, 2001; 179 (http://www.csb.gov. lv).
14. Šumilo D, Asokliene L, Avsic-Zupanc T, et al. Behavioural responses to perceived risk of tick-borne encephalitis: vaccination and avoidance in the Baltics and Slovenia. Vaccine 2007; (submitted for publication).
15. Šumilo D, Asokliene L, Bormane A, et al. Climate change cannot explain the upsurge of tick-borne encephalitis in the Baltics. PLoS ONE 2007; 2: e500.
16. Eurostat website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/dgs/eurostat/index_en.htm).
17. Statistics, Estonia (http://www.stat.ee).
18. Central Statistical Bureau, Latvia.
19. State Enterprise Centre of Registers, Lithuania.
20. Statistical Office of the Czech Republic.
21. Statistical Office of Slovenia (http://www.stat.si/eng/drz_stat.asp).
22. Department of Statistics to Government of Lithuania.
23. Environment Information Centre, Estonia.
24. Statistical Yearbook of Slovenia.
25. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Statistics to Government of Lithuania.
26. State Forest Service, Latvia.
27. Hunter Society of Estonia.
28. Ministry of Environment and Department of Statistics to Government of Lithuania.
29. Centre for Communicable Diseases Prevention and Control, Lithuania.
30. Lithuanian Labour Exchange at the Ministry of Social Security and Labour.
31. Employment Service of Slovenia.
32. Sharma S, Lavoué D, Cachier H, et al. Long-term trends of the black carbon concentrations in the Canadian Arctic. J Geophys Res Atmos 2004; 109: D15203-15212.
33. Wild M, Gilgen H, Roesch A, et al. From dimming to brightening: decadal changes in solar radiation at Earth's surface. Science 2005; 308: 847-850.
34. Zile S, Kimelis A. [Comparative analysis of restructurization and privatisation processes of agricultural sector in the Baltic States and Central and Eastern European countries during 1990-1995] (in Latvian). In Development in Agricultural and Market Policies. Latvian State Institute of Agrarian Economics: Riga, 1996; 163-171.
35. Bezemer DJ. De-collectivization in Czech and Slovak agriculture: an institutional explanation. J Econ Issues 2002; 36: 723-745.
36. Eamets R. Labour market flows and adjustment to macroeconomic shocks in the Baltic States. Post Comm Econ 2004; 16: 47-71.
37. Nikodemus O, Bell, S., Grine I, et al. The impact of economic, social and political factors on the landscape structure of the Vidzeme uplands in Latvia. Landsc Urban Plan 2003; 70: 57-67.
38. Petersen J, Hoogeveen Y. Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries. Implications of applying the EU common agricultural policy. European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, 2004.
39. Kerbo N, Donchenko I, Kutsar K, et al. Tickborne encephalitis outbreak in Estonia linked to raw goat milk, May-June 2005. Eurosurveil Wkly 2005; 10(6):2-4.
40. Šumilo D. Biological and Non-Biological Factors in the Spatio-Temporal Changes of Tick-Borne Encephalitis in the Baltic States. Oxford: University of Oxford, 2007.
41. Lyulko I, Frolova M, Indriksone I, et al. EMEP assessment in Latvia (1985-2000). Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development in Latvia, Latvian Hydrometeorological Agency, Observational Network Department: Riga, 2002.
42. Pupila A, Bergmanis U. Species diversity, abundance and dynamics of small mammals in the Eastern Latvia. Acta Univ Latvs 2006; 710: 93-101.
43. Juricova Z, Halozka J, Forejtek P, et al. Detection of antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in hares, wild boars and pheasants in the Czech Republic. Biologia (Bratislava) 1996; 51: 331-333.
44. Wegner Z, Stanczak J, Racewicz M, et al. The etiological agent of Lyme disease, Borrelia burgdorferi, in ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) from eastern Poland. Zentrbl Bakteriol 1997; 286: 93-106.
45. Begon M, Harper JL, Townsend CR. Ecology. Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford, 2006.
46. Gray JS, Kahl O, Janetzki C, et al. Studies on the ecology of Lyme disease in a deer forest in County Galway, Ireland. J Med Entomol 1992; 29: 915-920.
47. Jensen PM, Frandsen F. Temporal risk assessment for Lyme borreliosis in Denmark. Scand J Infect Dis 2000; 35: 539-544.
48. Hubálek Z, Halouzka J, Juricová Z. Longitudinal surveillance of the tick Ixodes ricinus for borreliae. Med Vet Entomol 2003; 17: 46-51.
49. Reutersward A. Labour Markets and Social Policies in the Baltic Countries. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Paris, 2003; 177.
50. Blanchflower DG. Unemployment, well-being, and wage curves in Eastern and Central Europe. J Jap Int Econ 2001; 15: 364-102.
51. Heyns B. Emerging inequalities in Central and Eastern Europe. Ann Rev Sociol 2005; 31: 163-197.
52. Lerman Z. Agriculture in transition economies: from common heritage to divergence. Agric Econ 2001; 26: 94-114.
53. Aasland A, Tyldum G. Better or Worse? Living Conditions Developments in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania 1994-99. Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science: Oslo, 2000; 13.
54. Centre for Forest Economics. The Lithuanian statistical yearbook of forestry 2002. Ministry of Environment: Vilnius, 2002.
55. Centre for Forest Economics. The Lithuanian statistical yearbook of forestry 2001. Ministry of Environment: Vilnius, 2001.
56. Lune E. Household Economic Resources. Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia: Riga, 2001; 99-114.
57. Rajevska F. Social safety net in Latvia. In Politics and Sociology, Ozolina Z (ed.). Zinatne: Riga, 2004; 40-59.
58. Kriz B, Benes C, Danielova V, et al. Socio-economic conditions and other anthropogenic factors influencing tick-borne encephalitis incidence in the Czech Republic. Int J Med Microbiol 2004; 293(suppl): 63-68.
59. UNDP. Poverty reduction in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. UNDP: Riga, 2000.