Requestionner les approches de santé publique après Ebola

Anthropologists contributed to the response to the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak in three ways: as Ebola experts, cultural mediators between populations and caregivers, and researchers. This article presents a preliminary review of approaches, contributions and related issues based on a literature review, case studies and debates. The anthropological research discussed in this article concerns four themes: epidemiological contexts of transmission; cultural interpretation of illness and social responses; social construction of stakeholders' experience; critical analysis of public health interventions. In addition to insightful contributions, particularly regarding the socio-political contexts and their interfaces with global public health measures, anthropologists tested forms of communication to facilitate access of public health actors to their results. However, these heterogeneous forms of engagement raise a number of questions, especially when they reflect anthropological interpretations that exclude any critical or reflexive dimension, or when anthropology is considered to be similar to social intervention. Nevertheless, anthropological research provides a major contribution, which could be even greater if transnational networks set up by researchers to analyse the socio-political, economic and biocultural dimensions of emerging epidemics are supported in order to improve "preparedness" for future health crises

Surveillance in the field : over-identification of Ebola suspect cases and its contributing factors in West African at-risk contexts

During an Ebola outbreak, the WHO recommends that health professionals consider people as suspect cases (SCs) when they show key signs such as the sudden onset of high fever or specific symptoms after having had contact with a suspect or confirmed Ebola case. SCs should then get care, be isolated and be reported to health authorities until the Ebola virus disease is confirmed through a lab test. This exploratory study aims to understand this identification process in the field based on a qualitative analysis of the diagnosis and therapeutic itineraries of 19 SCs in Cote d'Ivoire and Senegal (2014-2015). Results indicate that the main criteria for SC identification at the field level were fever (understood broadly) and provenance from a highly affected country (applied indiscriminately). WHO criteria were not followed in at least 9 of the 19 cases. Several medical, social and cultural factors favour over-identification of people as SCs, including relativism in defining 'high fever', placism, humanitarian or securitarian bias, issues in categorising SC's contact cases, and the context of fear. To avoid undue categorisation and its possible harmful social effects, the WHO definition should be implemented more carefully in various contexts and with greater consideration for ethical issues, while prioritising diagnosis strategies with higher specificity