Reflection on Experience Trip following an epidemiological activity by WHO on U.S waterborne diseases

Reflection on Experience Trip following an epidemiological activity by WHO on U.S waterborne diseases

In a bid to control and prevent human illnesses subject to causation factors, epidemiologists study diseases at primary level outlining its relationship with population cluster, prevalence, and exposure. In so doing, the knowledge gathered becomes a reference point for control and prevention of health problems. Essentially, this means that epidemiological studies are more of surveys outlining the aetiology of conditions, especially outbreaks associated with environmental factors. Risk factors implied by these studies helps government officials or body of organization in drawing measures to reduce the risk as well as control the prevalence.

In my experience, trip, I have been interested in experiencing an epidemiological activity concerned with waterborne diseases. As such, I happened to attend a lecture by world health organization (WHO) that involved an epidemiological activity involving surveillance of the prevalence of waterborne diseases in the United States. In this activity, it was interesting to learn that the major goal of the epidemiological activity was to gather data about causes of waterborne diseases such that from the study, control programs can be developed to enhance control of water quality as well as initiate call to action measures towards sanitation improvement of groundwater sources. Notably, the surveillance was specifically assessing the relationship between the outbreak of giardiasis and cryptosporidiosis waterborne diseases, and zoonotic protozoa and bacterias such as salmonella and E.coli.

Critical observation shows that the epidemiological model utilized in the study, was classified based on agent, and method of transmission where the agents factored are protozoa and bacteria.On the other hand, the method of transmission was factored in terms of person to environment, environment to person, and reservoir to the person. In this case, it was interesting to learn that infections resulting from waterborne diseases are inclined to biological and environmental processes. In this context, it was realized that the increased prevalence of waterborne diseases in the United States results from drinking water that has pathogens from faecal or urine outputs. Basically, the surveillance inferred that contraction of waterborne diseases results from triad kind of disease model made of three interrelated factors that is, the pathogen, the host and the environment. In this case, the environment is factored as a reservoir of infection which has a maintained contact with the host. For example, having a well that is a common source of water for a community. Through social, biological, and physical interactions, the water becomes infected, thereby passing infectious agents to the host who becomes infectious to others. Also, from the epidemiological activity, it was significant to realize that the spread of waterbornediseases has some relationship with social economic and geographical factors. This means that the outbreak may be regional and based on population cluster. For example, theWHO epidemiological surveillance implied that increased population of both people and animals accelerate the population of pathogensmore so, it creates an environment that facilitates closer contact hence promoting the mode of pathogen to host transmission. From a general perspective, this seems to imply that waterborne diseases may be much prevalent in densely populated areas or areas with poor living standards..

From an analytical perspective, the epidemiological activity seems to have focused on biological, environmental and social levels. This means that it had a multiple focus channelled to provide a survey based on biological, social, and environmental findings. More openly, consideration of bacteria and protozoa as agents of zoonotic diseases conveyed the biological model of theactivity. Equally, factoring population clustering as a risk factor enhancing coexistence of the agent-host- environment pyramid revealed the social attribute of the activity. Still, considering human close contact and living standards as a risk factor of waterborne diseases, conveyed the social attribute of the activity. On the other hand, the relationship factor between host, agent, and environment such as the climate reservoir denoted the environmental inclusion of the activity. Combined, it is clear that the epidemiological model of waterborne disease was multiple with a clear focus on social, environmental, and biological causal influencing factors.

To a greater extent, it can be argued that the levels considered by the activity were effective choices. Primarily, this is because the three factors that is the social, environmental, and biological models imply the principles of epidemiological study such as personal characteristics, social-economic factors, and environmental exposure. Hence, this implies that the study was comprehensive and based on the ideology of disease surveillance and investigation that draws focus on the rate of disease prevalence and impact across populations. In this way, it can be argued that the experience was informative and sets a significant foundation for further epidemiological surveyon infectious diseases.