1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Preventing zoonotic spillover through regulatory frameworks governing wildlife trade: A scoping review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Wildlife trade can create adverse impacts for biodiversity and human health globally, including increased risks for zoonotic spillover that can lead to pandemics. Institutional responses to zoonotic threats posed by wildlife trade are diverse; understanding regulations governing wildlife trade is an important step for effective zoonotic spillover prevention measures. In this review, we focused on peer-reviewed studies and grey literature conducted on regulatory approaches that govern domestic and international wildlife trade in order to assess the role of local, national and global-level institutions in the prevention of zoonotic spillover and infection transmission between humans. The five-stage scoping review protocol described by Arksey and O’Malley to map key concepts and main sources and types of evidence available was followed to understand and analyze empirical evidence from peer-reviewed studies and grey literature conducted on regulatory approaches that govern domestic and international wildlife. Sources were included if they discuss at least one of three points: regulatory approaches governing the wild animal trade, including wild animal markets, traditional medicine or exotic pets; regulatory approaches governing importation of wild animals and the international wildlife supply chain; or the role of local, national, and global-level institutions in regulating wild animal trade for food, traditional medicine or exotic pets. A total of 1598 sources were retrieved, from which 32 sources were included in the final review (30 studies + 2 grey literature reports). Based on published literature, regulations governing wildlife trade are inconsistent within and between countries. Organizations regulating wildlife trade may have competing interests, which can lead to fragmentation and a lack in coordination and oversight. National compliance with international regulations can be an issue. Reducing the probability of spillover events in wildlife trade is key to prevent future pandemics. Our results indicate a need for enhanced regulatory harmonization within and between national and supranational regulations. Coordination and collaboration for prevention of zoonotic infection and spillover may be enhanced through future research focused on the effectiveness of timely Information sharing and global- and national- level harmonization of wildlife trade regulations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references89

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency

              Background The scoping review has become an increasingly popular approach for synthesizing research evidence. It is a relatively new approach for which a universal study definition or definitive procedure has not been established. The purpose of this scoping review was to provide an overview of scoping reviews in the literature. Methods A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A search was conducted in four bibliographic databases and the gray literature to identify scoping review studies. Review selection and characterization were performed by two independent reviewers using pretested forms. Results The search identified 344 scoping reviews published from 1999 to October 2012. The reviews varied in terms of purpose, methodology, and detail of reporting. Nearly three-quarter of reviews (74.1%) addressed a health topic. Study completion times varied from 2 weeks to 20 months, and 51% utilized a published methodological framework. Quality assessment of included studies was infrequently performed (22.38%). Conclusions Scoping reviews are a relatively new but increasingly common approach for mapping broad topics. Because of variability in their conduct, there is a need for their methodological standardization to ensure the utility and strength of evidence. © 2014 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Funding acquisitionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                6 January 2025
                2025
                : 20
                : 1
                : e0312012
                Affiliations
                [1 ] School of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ] Dahdaleh Institute for Global Health Research, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ] School of Global Health, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ] Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America
                [5 ] AMR Policy Accelerator, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [6 ] Global Strategy Lab, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [7 ] School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                National Veterinary Research Institute, NIGERIA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9171-6113
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2379-4523
                Article
                PONE-D-23-41479
                10.1371/journal.pone.0312012
                11703008
                39761248
                259a057a-8f5d-4f2a-ba71-269d891af88e
                © 2025 Aguiar et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 12 December 2023
                : 28 September 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 4, Pages: 25
                Funding
                Funded by: Canadian Institutes for Health Research
                Award ID: 162798
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000024, Canadian Institutes of Health Research;
                Award ID: VR5-172686
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Global One Health Network
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Canadian Institutes for Health Research
                Award ID: 3468277
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: David H. Smith Conservation Research Fellowship Program
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000024, Canadian Institutes of Health Research;
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000024, Canadian Institutes of Health Research;
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Dahdaleh Institute for Global Health Research
                Award Recipient :
                AR was supported through the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (#162798) and the Global One Health Network. AMV is supported by grant funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant reference number: VR5-172686), and the York Research Chair in Population Health Ethics & Law. CCA is funded by the Joint Programming Initiative on Anti-Microbial Resistance (Canadian Institutes for Health Research Grant #3468277). EGC is supported by grant funding from the David H. Smith Conservation Research Fellowship Program. MW is supported by funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. RA is supported by funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Dahdaleh Institute for Global Health Research, York University, Canada.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Animals
                Wildlife
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Zoology
                Animals
                Wildlife
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Zoonoses
                Social Sciences
                Law and Legal Sciences
                Regulations
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Complementary and Alternative Medicine
                Traditional Medicine
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Database and Informatics Methods
                Database Searching
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Commerce
                International Trade
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Global Health
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Conservation Science
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content113

                Most referenced authors1,080