Research on Selected Wildlife Infections in the Circumpolar Arctic-A Bibliometric Review

Anastasia Emelyanova; Audrey Savolainen; Antti Oksanen; Pentti Nieminen; Olga Loginova; Khaled Abass; Arja Rautio

doi:10.3390/ijerph191811260

Research on Selected Wildlife Infections in the Circumpolar Arctic-A Bibliometric Review

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Sep 7;19(18):11260. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191811260.

Authors

Anastasia Emelyanova^{1

2}, Audrey Savolainen^{2

3}, Antti Oksanen³, Pentti Nieminen⁴, Olga Loginova⁵, Khaled Abass², Arja Rautio^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ Thule Institute, University of Oulu & University of the Arctic, P.O. Box 7300, FI-90014 Oulu, Finland.
² Arctic Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 5000, FI-90590 Oulu, Finland.
³ Finnish Food Authority (FINPAR), Elektroniikkatie 3, FI-90590 Oulu, Finland.
⁴ Medical Informatics and Data Analysis Research Group, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 5000, FI-90014 Oulu, Finland.
⁵ Laboratory of Parasite Systematics and Evolution, Center for Parasitology, A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninskii Prospect 33, 119071 Moscow, Russia.

Abstract

One Health, a multidisciplinary approach to public health, which integrates human, animal, and environmental studies, is prudent for circumpolar Arctic health research. The objective of our bibliometric review was to identify and compare research in select infectious diseases in Arctic wildlife species with importance to human health indexed in English language databases (PubMed, Scopus) and the Russian database eLibrary.ru. Included articles (in English and Russian languages) needed to meet the following criteria: (1) data comes from the Arctic, (2) articles report original research or surveillance reports, (3) articles were published between 1990 and 2018, and (4) research relates to naturally occurring infections. Of the included articles (total n = 352), most were from Russia (n = 131, 37%), Norway (n = 58, 16%), Canada (n = 39, 11%), and Alaska (n = 39, 11%). Frequently reported infectious agents among selected mammals were Trichinella spp. (n = 39), Brucella spp. (n = 25), rabies virus (n = 11), Echinococcus spp. (n = 10), and Francisella tularensis (n = 9). There were 25 articles on anthrax in eLibrary.ru, while there were none in the other two databases. We identified future directions where opportunities for further research, collaboration, systematic reviews, or monitoring programs are possible and needed.

Keywords: Arctic; One Health; bibliometric review; infectious disease; wildlife health; zoonosis.

Publication types

Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Alaska / epidemiology
Animals
Animals, Wild*
Arctic Regions
Bibliometrics
Communicable Diseases* / epidemiology
Communicable Diseases* / veterinary
Humans
Mammals

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the Nunataryuk project. The project received funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement no. 773421—A.E., K.A., A.R., https://nunataryuk.org/ (accessed on 1 September 2022); and by One Arctic—One Health: Animal and human health in the changing climate project funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland (Grant Agreement No. HEL7M0674–65)—K.A., A.S., A.O., A.R., https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/globalassets/tietoa-meista/julkaisut/julkaisusarjat/tutkimukset/riskiraportit/ruokaviraston_tutkimuksia_3_2019_190719.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2022). Additional funding was provided by the Finnish Food Authority (Ruokavirasto)—A.S., https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/en/ (accessed on 1 September 2022).