Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2023 Jul 13;17(7):e0011485. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011485

Snakebite envenomations and access to treatment in communities of two indigenous areas of the Western Brazilian Amazon: A cross-sectional study

Altair Seabra de Farias 1,2, Manoel Rodrigues Gomes Filho 3, Macio da Costa Arévalo 3, Joseir Saturnino Cristino 1,2, Franciane Ribeiro Farias 4, André Sachett 1,2, Alexandre Vilhena Silva-Neto 1,2, Fabíola Guimarães de Carvalho 1, Sediel Andrade Ambrosio 5, Erica da Silva Carvalho 1,2, Marcus Lacerda 1,2,6, Felipe Murta 1,2, Vinícius Azevedo Machado 1, Fan Hui Wen 7, Wuelton Monteiro 1,2,*, Jacqueline Sachett 1,2
Editor: Abdulrazaq G Habib8
PMCID: PMC10368234  PMID: 37440596

Abstract

Background

The indigenous populations of Brazil present poor health indicators and a disproportionate prevalence and case-fatality rate of neglected tropical diseases, including snakebite envenomations (SBEs). This study aims to estimate access to medical care for SBEs and analyze the barriers that prevent victims from accessing healthcare in indigenous communities in two health districts located in the Western Brazilian Amazon.

Methodology/Principal findings

This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews to collect data from individuals who experienced SBEs in the Upper Rio Solimões and Upper Rio Negro indigenous health districts. Of the 187 participants, 164 (87.7%) reported that they had access to healthcare and received assistance in a hospital in the urban area of the municipalities. Frequency was 95.4% in the Upper Rio Solimões SIHD, and 69.6% in the Upper Rio Negro SIHD (P<0.0001). The study found that the availability of indigenous medicine as the only choice in the village was the main reason for not accessing healthcare (75%), followed by a lack of financial resources and means of transportation (28.1%). Four deaths were reported from SBEs, resulting in a case-fatality rate of 2.1%.

Conclusions/Significance

In the study areas, there are records of SBE patients who did not receive medical attention. Availability of pre-hospital emergency transport using motorboats, a greater number of hospitals and better navigability of the Solimões River and its tributaries would make access easier for indigenous people living in the region of the Upper Solimões River. The implementation of cross-cultural hospital care needs to be considered in order to reduce the resistance of indigenous populations in relation to seeking treatment for SBEs.

Author summary

Interdisciplinary research on snakebites and the engagement of indigenous and riverine populations of the Amazon are essential for the formulation of innovative and tailored strategies towards achieving the global target of halving the number of deaths and disabilities due to snakebite envenomations by 2030 in Brazil. These populations are key to reducing these poor outcomes since they are disproportionately affected by snakebites. In this work, we evaluated access to medical care in SBE patients and analyzed barriers that prevent victims from accessing healthcare in indigenous villages in two health districts in the Brazilian Amazon. Snakebites were reported in all age groups, including a high rate among children, which demonstrates their great contact with venomous snakes in indigenous villages. A proportion of 12.3% of individuals with a lifetime history of snakebites did not receive hospital treatment, ranging from 4.6% in the Upper Rio Solimões health district to 30.4% in the Upper Rio Negro health district. Availability of pre-hospital emergency transport using motorboats, a greater number of hospitals and better navigability of the Solimões River and its tributaries would make access easier for indigenous people living in this district. We discuss the role that the implementation of cross-cultural hospital care, which considers specific indigenous needs for accommodation and food, may have in reducing the resistance of indigenous populations to seek western treatment for snakebites.

Introduction

In 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a strategy to reduce mortality and disability rates caused by snakebite envenomations (SBEs) by half by 2030 [1]. This strategy includes ensuring safe, accessible and effective treatment and empowering communities to be proactive in preventing bites, improving access to treatment, and strengthening local health systems to achieve better outcomes for patients. In Brazil, a plan to achieve self-sufficiency in manufacturing snakebite antivenoms by state laboratories was developed in the 1980s, and this was coupled with a national epidemiological surveillance system that is organized to distribute these immunobiological drugs to hospitals in almost 3,000 municipalities, where free of charge antivenom treatment is provided [2]. Despite all the advances in this system, antivenoms are not uniformly available or accessible across the Brazilian territories, principally in the remote areas in the Brazilian Amazon [2,3]. Lack of timely access to antivenoms is a major determinant of the disproportionately high morbidity and mortality rates associated with SBEs in the Brazilian Amazon when compared to the rest of the country [2,3].

In the Brazilian Amazon, the therapeutic itineraries of SBE patients are affected by the low acceptance and poor infrastructure of local healthcare facilities, which are a result of the ineffective response to health problems in the municipalities [4]. The current plans to increase antivenom treatment coverage in remote areas of the Amazon require infrastructure investments in safe storage options for antivenoms and increased access to fully equipped treatment facilities. Decentralization of antivenom treatment must be coupled with professional training to strengthen the local health systems [3]. Barriers and facilitators for the implementation processes must include the analysis of organizational priorities, resources and capabilities, and be aligned with environmental and cultural components of the healthcare system, including staff understanding, commitment and attitudes. Furthermore, in SBE-endemic countries, healthcare workers lack sufficient knowledge to be able to manage envenomed patients and feel insecure when treating SBEs, which is caused by limited training of these professionals during their medical education [5,6].

The Brazilian indigenous population, according to the results of the last national census in 2010, was 896,917 indigenous people, of which 572,083 lived in rural areas and 324,834 lived in urban areas. From the total, 305,873 (37.4%) lived in the northern region of the country; in this region, the state with the largest indigenous population is the state of Amazonas, with 55% of the total [7]. In Brazil, poor health indicators are reported in indigenous populations, with a disproportionate prevalence and case-fatality of neglected tropical diseases [8]. Importantly, there is a substantial, but so far unmeasured. disease burden from tuberculosis [9], malaria [10], leishmaniasis [11], soil-transmitted helminthiases [12], Chagas disease [13], trachoma [14], leprosy [15], and SBEs [3]. However, there is still a need for transdisciplinary solutions to the problem of neglected diseases in the Amazonian indigenous communities [16].

This study aimed to estimate the proportion of access to healthcare in SBE cases and analyze barriers that prevent victims from obtaining healthcare in indigenous communities located in two indigenous health districts, in the Western Brazilian Amazon.

Methods

Ethics statement

This study involved collection of data from indigenous populations, and the consent was obtained from indigenous leaders from each village. After this consent was obtained, the study protocol was submitted to the Health Research Coordination of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (COSAU/CNPq) and to the National Indigenous Foundation (FUNAI). Subsequently, with the approvals from COSAU/CNPq and FUNAI, the protocol was submitted to and approved by the Amazonas State University Ethical Board and the National Research Ethics Commission (approval number 4,993,083/2021). FUNAI issued the authorization for entry into indigenous areas under number 3/AAEP/PRES/2021. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers’ entries into indigenous lands were suspended. Therefore, data collection was carried out by three nurses providing health care in the study area, after training to apply the research instrument. To ensure understanding of the study, the interviews were always carried out accompanied by a native speaker of the participant’s language. All participants signed a consent form after full reading of the study’s objectives and procedures. Children and adolescents signed an assent form and their parents or legal guardians signed a consent form agreeing to the inclusion of the minor in the study.

Study area

This study was carried out in the area covered by two special indigenous health districts (SIHDs; Upper Rio Negro and Upper Rio Solimões) in the state of Amazonas, in the Western Brazilian Amazon. These areas are demarcated by the federal government, and border Peru and Colombia (Fig 1). This region is the one with the greatest burden of SBEs in the state of Amazonas, in which incidence rates reach over 150 SBEs per 100,000 inhabitants/year [17], and the case-fatality rate is 40 deaths from SBEs/1,000 cases [18].

Fig 1. Study area.

Fig 1

A: State of Amazonas, in Brazil; B: Area of the Special Indigenous Health Districts (SIHD; Upper Rio Negro and Upper Rio Solimões), in the Western Brazilian Amazonia; C: Upper Rio Negro SIHD area, with the urban area of São Gabriel da Cachoeira and five health centers; D: Area covered by the Upper Rio Solimões SIHD, with the urban areas of Tabatinga and São Paulo de Olivença and two health centers. The geographical coordinates of each health center were obtained during the visits using GPS (Garmin GPSMAP 64x). The base used to create the map was obtained from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, which is freely accessible for creative use in shapefile format, in accordance with the Access to Information Law (12,527/2011) (https://www.ibge.gov.br/geociencias/downloads-geociencias.html?caminho=cartas_e_mapas/bases_cartograficas_continuas/bc250/versao2021/).

Upper Rio Negro SIHD

In its area of coverage, it has 25 health centers, 19 of which are in São Gabriel da Cachoeira, that are distributed in 747 villages and towns, and 32,720 indigenous people in an area of 138,020.94 km2. The upper Negro River region is inhabited by 23 indigenous peoples who speak the languages of the Eastern Tukano, Aruak and Maku families. Within the Eastern Tukano linguistic trunk there are the Tukano, Dessana, Tuyuka, Wanana, Bará, Kubeu, Barassana, Piratapuia, Tariana, Miriti-Tapuya, Arapasso, Karapanã, Makuna and Siriano ethnicities. The Aruak trunk is composed of the Baré, Baniwa, Werekena, and Kuripako ethnicities. The Hüpd’ah, Nädeb, Yuhup’deh and Dãw ethnic groups belong to the Maku linguistic branch. Currently, this SIHD has 54 multidisciplinary indigenous health teams that are composed of doctors, nurses, nursing assistants, indigenous health agents, indigenous sanitation agents, dentists, oral health assistants, and laboratory technicians. In this SIHD, the participants were recruited in five health centers and in 16 indigenous villages.

Upper Rio Solimões SIHD

This SIHD serves the second-largest indigenous population in Brazil, with a total of 70,891 indigenous people living in 241 villages with 13 health centers that are located in seven municipalities (Tabatinga, Benjamin Constant, São Paulo de Olivença, Amaturá, Santo Antônio do Içá, Tonantins, and Japurá), with seven indigenous ethnicities (Tikuna, Kokama, Kaixana, Kambeba, Kanamari, Witoto, and Maku-Yuhup). This population is distributed in 44 indigenous reserves that are located in the region of the Jacurapá, Camatiã, Jandiatuba, Tacana, Igarapé de Belém, Uaiti Paranã, Jacapari, Matintin, Içá and Apoporis Rivers. Th health teams in this SIHD include doctors, nurses, dentists, psychologists, pharmacists, nutritionists, laboratory technicians, nursing technicians, oral health assistants, indigenous health agents, and indigenous sanitation agents. In this SIHD, the participants were recruited in two health centers and in 23 indigenous villages.

Study design, participants and procedures

In this survey, the participants were identified from the SBE cases reported to the Indigenous Health Care Information System (Sistema de Informação da Atenção à Saúde Indígena; SIASI), cases identified by the indigenous health agents and by other health professionals working in the villages, and by using a snowball sampling technique–a non-probability sampling technique in which previously included participants in each village identified other eligible subjects from among their acquaintances [19]. Fig 2 shows the communities within the SDIH where the participants were recruited for the study.

Fig 2. Indigenous villages within the special indigenous health districts where the participants were recruited for the study.

Fig 2

A: Location of the five health centers and the 16 indigenous villages of the Upper Rio Negro SIHD, with participants recruited for the study; B: Location of the two health centers and the 23 indigenous villages of the Upper Rio Solimões SIHD, with participants recruited for the study. The geographical coordinates of each village were obtained during the visits using GPS (Garmin GPSMAP 64x). The base used to create the map was obtained from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, which is freely accessible for creative use in shapefile format, in accordance with the Access to Information Law (12,527/2011) (https://www.ibge.gov.br/geociencias/downloads-geociencias.html?caminho=cartas_e_mapas/bases_cartograficas_continuas/bc250/versao2021/).

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews by three trained nurses, via the application of a questionnaire with open and closed questions. Children and adolescents were interviewed in the presence of their parents or legal guardians, who assisted them in their responses. In the case of reported deaths, information regarding the deceased person was collected by interviewing the relatives. The questionnaire assessed information on demographic and socio-economic characteristics, including gender, age, ethnicity, marital status, literacy, occupation, religion, monthly income, municipality and community of residence, fluency in Portuguese, and characteristics of their houses. Participants were asked about the number of SBEs they had suffered, the date of the most recent SBE, the geographic location where the bite occurred and the work he/she performed, the popular name of the perpetrating snake, use of protective measures, the anatomical region of the bite, local and systemic signs and symptoms, use of indigenous medicine, visit to a hospital for treatment, and the time elapsed from bite occurring to medical care being received. A board containing photographs of snakes was shown to the patient to assess whether they recognized the specimen responsible for the envenomations [20]. In cases in which the participant was not treated at hospital, the reason given for the non-utilization of the health service was also registered.

Whenever the participant was not fluent in Portuguese, an indigenous health agent participated as an interpreter.

These communities present a model of land occupation and natural-resource use that is predominantly subsistence-oriented. Main subsistence activities are fishing, agriculture (cassava, yam, corn, watermelon, sugarcane, banana, pineapple), the extraction of forest resources for basketry and crafts, hunting, and livestock raising (chickens, pigs and goats). During the visits, cassava plantations were observed in most communities, the production of which serves essentially to prepare cassava flour for their own consumption. Fishing and game hunting are important sources of food for these populations. Some villages carry out fishing and game hunting activities both for subsistence and for trade with non-indigenous communities. There are also açaí plantations, and fruit and vegetable gardens in most villages. The exchange of goods between villages is a common practice, including between different ethnic groups. The Baniwas are excellent artisans (of baskets, cassava graters, hammocks, and decorative objects) and cultivate several varieties of peppers, whose trade is commercially important for these villages. Some indigenous groups, especially the Tikunas, who interact more frequently with urban populations, either sell their products at markets in the cities (fruits such as ingá, mapati, pupunha, banana, umari, pineapple, araza, abiu, guava, soursop; cassava and cassava flour; handcrafts, and others) or buy industrialized products (rice, pasta, sugar, salt, soft drinks, frozen chicken, and others) for their own consumption and resale in the villages. They usually visit cities by waterway using small motorized boats. Fuels like gasoline are highly prized in villages. The houses are usually built of wood, and they are made on solid, floating or stilt bases. The Hüpd’ah build their houses out of mud. Many ethnic groups do not obey international borders and circulate in the Brazilian, Colombian and Peruvian territories. Only the most-populated villages have electricity and schools that provide basic education.

Statistical analysis

Comparison of the participants’ characteristics, history of SBEs, access to hospital treatments, and time elapsed from the bite occurring to medical assistance being received between the SIHDs was made using a Chi-square test (corrected by Fisher’s exact test, if necessary). Analysis of association was performed to assess the factors associated to lack of ‘access to healthcare’, defined here as the completion of the therapeutic itinerary from the moment of the bite to the participant’s admission to the hospital. The analysis included the estimates of access to healthcare in the studied population and identification of factors associated to access. The crude odds ratios (ORs) with their respective 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were determined considering lack of access to health care as a dependent variable. Logistic regression was used for the multivariate analyses and the adjusted ORs with 95% CI were also calculated. All variables associated with the outcomes at a significance level of p<0.20 in the univariate analysis were included in the multivariable analysis. Statistical significance was considered if p<0.05 in the statistical tests. The analysis was performed using STATA software (StataCorp. 2013: Release 13. College Station, TX, USA).

Results

The STROBE checklist is presented in the S1 Checklist.

Characteristics of the participants

A total of 187 individuals with a previous history of SBEs were identified in the indigenous villages, with 131 (70.1%) living in the Upper Rio Solimões SIHD and 56 (29.9%) in the Upper Rio Negro SIHD. Participants were mostly male (61.0%), aged 40-59-years old (26.2%), and illiterate or with ≤ 4 years of schooling (42.8%). Tikuna was the most-represented ethnic group in the Upper Rio Solimões SIHD (92.4%). The Hüpd’ah (33.9%) and Tukano (21.4%) ethnic groups were the most-represented in the Upper Rio Negro SIHD. Most of them were involved in agriculture/fishing/hunting/forestry activities (56.1%), and married or in stable relationships (58.8%). Regarding religion, participants declared themselves as Catholics (42.8%), Protestants (40.6%), or of the Saint Cross Order (16.0%). Most participants received welfare benefits, pensions family allowance as their principal source of income (40.6%), followed by income from primary sector activities (38.0%). Wooden houses were the main type of housing (85.6%). A proportion of 67.9% of the participants understand Portuguese, and 65.8% is able to fluently speak Portuguese. The characteristics of the study participants are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of indigenous victims of snakebite envenomations in two special indigenous health districts, state of Amazonas, Western Brazilian Amazon.

Variable Total Upper Rio Solimões Upper Rio Negro
(n = 187; 100%) (n = 131; 70.1%) (n = 56; 29.9%)
Gender
Male 114 (61.0%) 79 (60.3%) 35 (62.5%)
Age (years)
<18 32 (17.1%) 23 (17.6%) 9 (16.1%)
18–29 43 (23.0%) 32 (24.4%) 11 (19.6%)
30–39 24 (12.8%) 15 (11.5%) 9 (16.1%)
40–59 49 (26.2%) 40 (30.5%) 9 (16.1%)
≥60 39 (20.9%) 21 (16.0%) 18 (32.1%)
Ethnic group
Tikuna 121 (64.7%) 121 (92.4%) -
Kokama 10 (5.3%) 10 (7.6%) -
Tukano 12 (6.4%) - 12 (21.4%)
Piratapuya 4 (2.1%) - 4 (7.1%)
Hüpd’ah 19 (10.2%) - 19 (33.9%)
Tariano 6 (3.2%) - 6 (10.7%)
Baniwa 8 (4.3%) - 8 (14.3%)
Dessano 3 (1.6%) - 3 (5.4%)
Wanano 2 (1.1%) - 2 (3.6%)
Tuyuca 2 (1.1%) - 2 (3.6%)
Schooling (years)
Illiterate 38 (20.3%) 24 (18.3%) 14 (25.0%)
1–4 42 (22.4%) 28 (21.3%) 14 (25.0%)
5–8 59 (31.6%) 45 (34.4%) 14 (25.0%)
>8 48 (25.7%) 34 (26.0%) 14 (25.0%)
Occupation
Farmer/hunter 105 (56.1%) 76 (58.1%) 29 (51.8%)
Fisher 10 (5.3%) 10 (7.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Student 39 (20.9%) 25 (19.1%) 14 (25.0%)
Retired 30 (16.1%) 18 (13.7%) 12 (21.4%)
Professor 3 (1.6%) 2 (1.5%) 1 (1.8%)
Marital status
Single 55 (29.5%) 40 (30.6%) 15 (26.8%)
Married 110 (58.8%) 76 (58.0%) 34 (60.7%)
Widower 10 (5.3%) 7 (5.3%) 3 (5.4%)
Not applicable 12 (6.4%) 8 (6.1%) 4 (7.1%)
Religion
Catholic 80 (42.9%) 32 (24.4%) 48 (85.7%)
Saint Cross Order# 30 (16.0%) 30 (22.9%) -
Protestant 76 (40.6%) 68 (51.9%) 8 (14.3%)
Other 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.8%) -
Income source
Primary sector¥ 71 (38.0%) 65 (49.6%) 6 (10.7%)
Services 14 (7.5%) 10 (7.6%) 4 (7.1%)
Welfare, pensions and family allowance 76 (40.6%) 55 (42.0%) 21 (37.6%)
Subsistence activities 26 (13.9%) 1 (0.8%) 25 (44.6%)
Type of housing
Wood 160 (85.6%) 115 (87.8%) 45 (80.4%)
Masonry 17 (9.1%) 13 (9.9%) 4 (7.1%)
Palafita (on stilts) 7 (3.7%) 3 (2.3%) 4 (7.1%)
Mud house 3 (1.6%) - 3 (5.4%)
Understands Portuguese 127 (67.9%) 76 (58.0%) 51 (91.1%)
Speaks Portuguese 123 (65.8%) 75 (57.3%) 48 (85.7%)

# Saint Cross Order is a Messianic order that proliferates among indigenous communities in the Upper Rio Solimões. It was founded by a missionary in Minas Gerais, southeastern Brazil, in the early 70’s, who, after traveling through several countries in South America, ended up settling in the Upper Solimões region.

¥ Fishing, agriculture, forestry, and hunting.

History of snakebites

A total of 15 (8.1%) participants reported ≥2 SBEs during their lifetime. Most of the SBEs that happened were reported 1–5 years before this survey (101; 62.0%). In the two regions, SBEs occurred more frequently in non-floodable areas (91; 48.7%), in which agricultural, hunting and forestry activities are performed. Bothrops SBEs predominated in the two regions (182; 97.3%), ranging from 96.2% in the villages of the upper Solimões River to 100% in the villages of the upper Negro River. SBEs were reported mostly in the lower limbs (159; 85.0%) (Table 2).

Table 2. Characteristics of the 187 study participants according to their history of snakebites.

Variable Total Upper Rio Solimões HD Upper Rio Negro HD p-value
(n = 187; 100%) (n = 131; 70.1%) (n = 56; 29.9%)
Number of snakebites 0.34
1 172 (92.0%) 123 (93.9%) 49 (87.5%)
2 13 (6.9%) 7 (5.3%) 6 (10.7%)
3 2 (1.1%) 1 (0.8%) 1 (1.8%)
Date of the last snakebite <0.001
<3 months 9 (5.5%) 8 (6.6%) 1 (2.4%)
3–6 months 8 (4.9%) 8 (6.6%) -
6 months-1 year 10 (6.1%) 10 (8.3%) -
1–5 years 101 (62.1%) 74 (61.2%) 27 (64.2%)
6–10 years 17 (10.4%) 16 (13.2%) 1 (2.4%)
≥10 years 18 (11.0%) 5 (4.1%) 13 (31.0%)
Place where snakebite occurred 0.014
Non-floodable area 91 (48.7%) 55 (42.0%) 36 (64.3%)
Floodplain area 41 (21.9%) 36 (27.5%) 5 (8.9%)
Household area 30 (16.0%) 21 (16.0%) 9 (16.1%)
River bank 25 (13.4%) 19 (14.5%) 6 (10.7%)
Type of snakebite 0.53
Bothrops 182 (97.4%) 126 (96.1%) 56 (100.0%)
Lachesis 3 (1.6%) 3 (2.3%) -
Micrurus 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.8%) -
Unknown 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.8%) -
Anatomical region of the bite 0.13
Upper limbs 24 (12.8%) 21 (16.0%) 3 (5.4%)
Lower limbs 159 (85.1%) 107 (81.7%) 52 (92.8%)
Other 4 (2.1%) 3 (2.3%) 1 (1.8%)

Chi-square test (corrected by Fisher’s exact test, if necessary).

Use of indigenous medicine

The use of traditional treatments was reported by 57.8% of the participants interviewed. In 39 (36.1%) cases, the participants did not reveal the identity of the plant-derived medicines. Plants used in these preparations were not identified because the participants did not remember the name, it was not possible to find a corresponding name in Portuguese, the remedy was prepared by another person who did not inform them of the composition or it is a remedy whose composition is confidential. Prayers and chants, usually combined with tobacco smoking, were used by 18 (16.7%) participants. The indigenous medicines used by the study participants are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Indigenous medicines used by 108 study participants.

Treatment Form of administration Number (%)
Plant-derived preparations Infusions for oral use, or application of plasters made from crushed plants at the bite site. 39 (36.1)
Prayers and chants Prayers and chants, usually combined with tobacco smoking, performed by the shaman or other healing agents. 18 (16.7%)
Potato” or “little potato” (wild plant from the Brazilian Amazon) Infusions of the tuber for oral use, or application of plasters made from crushed plants at the bite site. 17 (15.7)
Gasoline Application at the bite site. 13 (12.0)
Salt Application at the bite site. 12 (11.1)
Snake tissues Application of skin, entrails, and feces at the bite site; ingestion of the snake’s blood and heart. 8 (7.4)
Sororoca” or “bananeira-brava”, a banana-like herb (Phenakospermum guyannense) Infusions of the root for oral use. 8 (7.4)
Salt water Ingestion of the solution. 5 (4.6)
Mastruz, Jesuit’s tea, or Mexican-tea (Dysphania ambrosioides) Application of plasters made from crushed leaves at the bite site. 4 (3.7)
Açaí palm tree (Euterpe oleracea) Infusions of the root for oral use. 4 (3.7)
Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) Application of plasters made from crushed leaves at the bite site, ingestion of tobacco macerated in water or smoking. 4 (3.7)
Cathedral bells or corama (Kalanchoe pinnata) Application of plasters made from crushed leaves at the bite site. 3 (2.8)
Peach tomato or cubiu (Solanum sessiflorum) Application of plasters made from crushed leaves at the bite site. 3 (2.8)
Charcoal Application of powdered charcoal at the bite site. 3 (2.8)
Sorb tree (Sorbus domestica) Application of the mixture of sorb tree latex with salt at the bite site. 2 (1.9)
Pacori (Pacouria boliviensis) Application of fruit pulp at the bite site. 2 (1.9)
Ginger (Zingiber officinale) Application of scrapings of the tubercle at the bite site. 2 (1.9)
Capeba or pariparoba (Piper umbellatum) Application of plasters made from crushed leaves at the bite site. 1 (0.9)
Peccary (Tayassu pecari) Use of the tooth in a glass of water (without ingestion of the tooth). 1 (0.9)
Coffee (Coffea sp.) Application of coffee powder at the bite site. 1 (0.9)
Breu, almecega or almiscar (Protium heptaphyllum) Application of the resin dissolved in gasoline at the bite site. 1 (0.9)
Cayman (Melanosuchus niger) Use of the tooth in the glass of water (without ingestion of the tooth). 1 (0.9)
Gentian violet Application of the solution at the bite site. 1 (0.9)
Papaya (Carica papaya) Application of the latex of the green fruit at the bite site. 1 (0.9)
Nance, maricao cimun or murici (Byrsonima crassifolia) Application of scrapings of the fruit at the bite site. 1 (0.9)

Some plants were not identified because the participants did not remember the name, it was not possible to find a corresponding name in Portuguese, the remedy was prepared by another person who did not inform the composition or it is a remedy whose composition is confidential.

Access to healthcare and associated factors

A total of 164 (87.7%) participants reported that they had access to healthcare and received assistance in a hospital in the urban area of the municipalities. The frequency was 95.4% in the Upper Rio Solimões SIHD, and 69.6% in the Upper Rio Negro SIHD (p<0.0001). Most of the participants who had access to hospitals sought it in less than 6 hours (50.3%). However, the frequency of participants that sought hospital care more than 24 hours after the snakebite was significantly higher for those living in the Upper Rio Negro SIHD (21.7% versus 5.1%; p = 0.001) (Fig 3).

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Access to healthcare (A) and time elapsed from the snakebite to hospital admission (in hours), according the special indigenous health district (B). The Chi-square test demonstrated a significantly higher frequency of access to hospital for participants living in the area of the Upper Rio Solimões SIHD compared to those of the Upper Rio Negro SIHD (p<0.0001), and the frequency of participants that had access to hospital with more than 24 hours after bite was significantly higher for those living in the Upper Rio Negro SIHD (p = 0.001).

In the multivariate analysis, living in Upper Rio Negro SIHD was independently associated with the lack of access to healthcare [aOR 19.33 (95%CI = 4.11–90.85); p-value<0.01] (Table 4).

Table 4. Factors associated to lack of access to healthcare in participants living in two special indigenous health districts, state of Amazonas, Western Brazilian Amazon.

Variable OR 95%CI p-value aOR 95%CI p-value
Special Indigenous Health District
Upper Rio Solimões 1.00 . . 1.00 . .
Upper Rio Negro 9.08 3.35–24.63 <0.01 19.33 4.11–90.85 <0.01
Gender
Female 1.23 0.51–2.98 0.64
Age (years)
<18 1.00 . . 1.00 . .
18–29 0.73 0.14–3.85 0.71
30–39 0.88 0.14–5.72 0.89
40–59 1.35 0.31–5.83 0.69
≥60 2.90 0.71–11.79 0.14 0.21 0.02–2.32 0.20
Schooling (years)
Illiterate 1.00 . . 1.00 . .
1–4 1.10 0.31–3.95 0.88
5–8 0.89 0.26–3.03 0.85
>8 0.77 0.21–2.87 0.69
Occupation
Farmer 0.37 0.15–0.92 0.03 0.20 0.03–1.52 0.12
Fisher 1.00 . . 1.00 . .
Student 0.78 0.25–2.43 0.66
Retired 4.38 1.69–11.37 <0.01 5.85 0.36–95.46 0.22
Teacher 15.52 1.35–178.66 0.03 4.33 0.13–147.52 0.42
Other 0.70 0.09–5.74 0.74
Marital status
Single 1.00 . . 1.00 . .
Married 4.84 1.08–21.79 0.04 5.46 0.54–55.66 0.15
Widower 6.63 0.81–53.9 0.08 7.97 0.52–123.04 0.14
Income source
Services 1.00 . . 1.00 . .
Primary sector ¥ 0.11 0.02–0.71 0.02 0.69 0.08–5.94 0.73
Welfare, pensions and family allowance 0.56 0.13–2.34 0.42 . . .
Subsistence activities 1.63 0.36–7.48 0.53 . . .
Number of snakebites
1 1.00 . . . . .
2 3.80 1.06–13.61 0.04 3.03 0.38–23.95 0.29
3 8.56 0.51–142.75 0.14 1.00 . .
Date of the last snakebite
<3 months 1.00 . . 1.00 . .
3–6 months 1.00 . .
6 months-1 year 0.22 0.02–2.19 0.20 1.00 . .
1–5 years 0.20 0.06–0.65 0.01 0.38 0.09–1.58 0.18
6–10 years 0.43 0.09–2.09 0.30
≥10 years 1.00 . .
Place where snakebite occurred
Non-floodable area 1.00 . . 1.00 . .
Floodplain area 0.26 0.06–1.19 0.08
Household area 1.01 0.33–3.07 0.98
River bank 0.21 0.03–1.68 0.14 0.40 0.03–4.59 0.46
Type of snakebite
Bothrops 1.00 . .
Lachesis 3.83 0.33–44.12 0.28
Micrurus 1.00 . .
Anatomical region of the bite
Upper limb 1.00 . .
Lower limb 0.95 0.26–3.49 0.94
Other 2.33 0.18–30.37 0.52
Use of indigenous medicine 1.00 . .

¥ Fishing, agriculture, forestry and hunting.

The main reason for not accessing healthcare as stated by the participants was the availability of indigenous medicine as the only choice in the village (75.0%), followed by lack of financial resources and means of transportation (28.1%), resistance to seeking medical assistance (6.3%), failure to recognize the situation as life-threatening (3.1%), and giving up on seeking medical help midway (3.1%). Thirteen participants cited more than one reason for not seeking medical attention.

Deaths from snakebites

In the survey, four deaths from SBEs were informed, resulting in a case-fatality rate of 2.1% (4/187). In the Upper Rio Solimões SIHD, the estimated case-fatality rate was 1.5% (2/131) and, in the Upper Rio Negro SIHD, the rate was 3.6% (2/56). In summary, the patients’ ages ranged from 29 to 89 years old. The adults were bitten during work activities. Only two of the individuals who died sought medical assistance at a hospital (Table 5).

Table 5. Characteristics of the four deaths from snakebites as described by family members.

Death cases Location Description
1 Village of Nova Prosperidade, Campo Alegre Health Center, municipality of São Paulo de Olivença Indigenous female of the Tikuna ethnicity, 58 years old, married, retired, illiterate, did not speak Portuguese, lived in a wooden house, was bitten on the leg by a pit viper (possibly Botrops atrox) while working in the cassava plantation in a lowland area. She felt pain, had swelling, did not seek health care and underwent treatment with indigenous medicine, ingesting the heart of a snake and a piece of the tail. She drank salt water and put salt and gasoline over the bite site.
2 Village of Nova Vila, Campo Alegre Health Center, municipality of São Paulo de Olivença Indigenous female of the Tikuna ethnicity, 62 years old, widow, retired, illiterate, did not speak Portuguese, lived in a wooden house, was bitten on the foot by a pit viper (possibly B. atrox), in a peridomicile area while walking home. She felt pain, had swelling, and hemorrhage. She sought care at the Campo Alegre health center, and was referred to the urban area of the city for antivenom treatment only 8 hours after the bite. She did not undergo treatment with indigenous medicine.
3 Village of Aracu-Cachoeira, Tucumã Health Center, municipality of São Gabriel da Cachoeira Indigenous male of Baniwa ethnicity, 29 years old, farmer, evangelical, spoke Portuguese, 8 years of schooling, single, lived in a wooden house, received family allowance, was bitten on the head by a pit viper (possibly B. atrox), on the river banks. He felt pain and had swelling. He was treated with indigenous medicine using roots of wild plants. It took 3 days to get to the urban area for antivenom treatment.
4 Village of Vila Dom Bosco, Yauaretê Health Center, municipality of São Gabriel da Cachoeira Indigenous female of Baniwa Piratapuya ethnicity, 89 years old, married, without own income, Catholic, illiterate, spoke Portuguese, lived in a wooden house. She was bitten on the leg by a pit viper (possibly B. atrox) while on the farm. She felt pain and had swelling. She sought care at the Army Hospital in São Gabriel da Cachoeira within 24 hours. She did not undergo treatment with indigenous medicine.

Discussion

Snakebite demographics in the study area

In this study, we found that all age groups were affected by SBEs with a similar frequency. In general, previous studies have shown that there is a predominance of cases among adult men, which is usually explained by associating these cases with an occupational risk [17,21]. This difference in the age profile of cases among indigenous populations is probably due to the high exposure that children have in the villages. Since childhood, indigenous people have been taught by their parents to carry out agricultural, hunting and fishing activities, which puts them at a risk level that is similar to that of adults. Ethnographic studies demonstrate that indigenous children enjoy very high mobility in the villages, which allows them to go to different houses and be present in almost all moments of social life [22]. Additionally, previous works have demonstrated that indigenous people have a disproportionate incidence of SBEs in relation to non-indigenous people, which must also occur due to these activities carried out for subsistence, as well as the way of life in the villages, in close and continuous contact with the forest [3]. The leisure activities of indigenous children take place in the residential spaces, which are not places that are free from the presence of snakes. When bitten, children tend to have greater severity and complications due to their smaller body mass in comparison to adults since the same volume of venom is inoculated [23,24].

Remarks on the indigenous medicine

Treatment of SBEs in indigenous villages is characterized by the use of tobacco smoking, chants and prayers, combined with animal tissues and bitter plants [25]. In this study, a considerable variety of medicines, with a predominance of medicines derived from plants and animals, alone or in combination with chants and prayers, was used. Most of the plants used in the treatment of SBEs did not have their identity revealed to the interviewer. This could be a strategy to preserve its therapeutic arsenal or a limitation associated with the lack of a known translation of a popular name of that plant into Portuguese. Despite the more frequent contact of indigenous populations with the urban environment nowadays, the use of western medicines was not mentioned in this study. Indeed, there is a persistent role of indigenous healers in Amazonian societies after the introduction of western medicine and advanced stage of medical pluralism in villages that are located closer to urban areas [26]. In the case of SBEs, this persistence may be associated with the thought that this health problem can only be treated by indigenous therapy due to an underlying extraphysical cause; for instance, if it is possible to incorporate characteristics of the perpetrating snake by using parts of this animal as medicine, as commonly seen in this study, this will benefit the patient regarding SBE complications [25]. Moreover, there is a tension among different categories of healers and resistance to being treated by a biomedical health system that is not tailored to indigenous needs [25,27]. Our results provide evidence of the need to collaborate with indigenous healers to engage them in a healthcare model with a timely referral of SBE patients to a facility that is equipped with antivenom while maintaining the parallel offer of indigenous practices to patients.

An interesting finding was the self-care with the use of gasoline and table salt, which are obviously not originally components of the indigenous medicine. This appropriation of external elements deserves to be further investigated. With the intensification of contact with the non-indigenous population, it is possible that the indigenous people identify substances that in some way offer some relief, even if transient, from the symptoms of the SBE. Gasoline poured over the skin gains heat from it and evaporates, which ends up leaving a feeling of freshness in the area. On the other hand, the indigenous people could explain the mechanism of action of evaporating gasoline in the same way they understand the action of tobacco smoking, which ‘sucks and removes’ the venom from the patient’s body [25]. One cannot discard the possibility that the use of gasoline can cause problems such as skin irritation, dryness, dermatitis, and even intoxication by inhalation.

Unequal access to care for indigenous SBE patients in different health districts

In this study, lack of access to healthcare was significantly associated to living in the Upper Rio Negro health district compared to the Upper Rio Solimões health district. In most of the Brazilian territory, in which access to hospitals is possible by roads, SBE patients can be admitted directly to hospitals that have antivenom available and which belong to the emergency care network in the Unified Health System (Rede de Atenção às Urgências no Sistema Único de Saúde) [28]. In this medical context, transport of patients to the hospitals can be carried out by the patients’ own means or by ambulances of the mobile emergency care service (Serviço de Atendimento Móvel de Urgência—SAMU), a public service for pre-hospital emergency transport. In the Amazon region, in a limited number of indigenous districts, there are ambulance service motorboats from the SAMU for indigenous healthcare (Serviço de Atendimento Móvel de Urgência da Saúde Indígena—SAMUSI) [29]. This is the case of the Upper Rio Solimões SIHD, which explains the better access to antivenom treatment in this district. In the Upper Rio Negro SIHD, health centers are located in areas so remote that transport is only possible by boats traveling enormous distances or by plane [27,30]. In addition, the indigenous peoples of the Upper Rio Solimões SIHD have more options for hospitals in the seven urban areas within its coverage area, while the Upper Rio Negro SIHD has only one point of care with regular antivenom, which is in the municipality of São Gabriel da Cachoeira. Finally, the navigability of the Solimoes River and its tributaries is better than that of the Negro River basin, with narrow tributaries and several waterfalls along its course. Among the non-indigenous riverside populations living on the banks of the Solimões, Juruá and Purus Rivers, the proportion of SBE patients who did not have access to the health system (53%) was even higher than that observed in this study, which demonstrates the greater vulnerability of populations not assisted by a specific health subsystem, such as the indigenous peoples [21].

In addition to the lack of transport, barriers to medical care related to the sociocultural aspects of indigenous populations are also noted. For many populations, going to the city in search of treatment generates fear and doubt about the outcome of the case, since they need to leave their territories and stay away from their families for a long time. In severe SBE cases that evolve with complications, indigenous patients are referred from the municipalities of origin to medium and high complexity facilities in Manaus, the state capital [31]. For example, some dietary and behavioral interdictions, which are part of the therapeutic itinerary to prevent SBE complications, which include the prohibition of consumption of various fish and game animals and of contact with pregnant and menstruating women are deemed necessary [25]. In practice, respect for these prohibitions can only be guaranteed if the indigenous person is in his or her village, where this takes place in the daily lives of these peoples [25]. Health professionals report that, in SIHD health units, indigenous people are subject to conflicts related to these interdictions [27]. The resolution of these conflicts depends on the adapted structure of the health units, presence of interpreters and the training and sensitivity of the care team and managers to carry out the necessary mediations so that the treatment is carried out in accordance with their culture [3234]. As an example, we can mention that the units do not always accommodate the indigenous people in hammocks to sleep, as required by some indigenous people, instead of conventional beds [33]. This generates uncertainties that affect the indigenous imaginary and that of their entire family when speculating about death far from the village, outside the home, since the life cycle of an indigenous person must end with his burial in his territory [35]. Thus, the possibility of death in a hospital can be understood as an important reason for resistance that affects the search for treatment in hospitals. Thus, it is to be expected that they use their ancestral knowledge as the only therapeutic resource, as observed in this study, such as self-care or in rituals and medicines prescribed by different classes of indigenous caregivers [25].

In this study, we adopted a cross-sectional approach with a non-probabilistic sampling based on the ease of access and existing contact within the population of interest. However, some indigenous villages were not included due to difficulties in terms of access, which prevented the study from having a greater number of participants. These more distant villages are precisely the ones that are most likely to have a greater number of bad cases and less favorable outcomes. As a result, our sampling method impairs the generalizability of our results. Moreover, unfortunately, the number of inhabitants per community was not obtained, which did not allow the calculation of the prevalence of snakebites in this population. The study also has a limitation in that it does not represent the medical reality of all indigenous ethnicities in the Brazilian Amazon, due to their cultural differences and possibilities of accessing the health system. Finally, the collection of information in this study depends on the memory of the participants, who in many cases were already elderly or had suffered their SBE more than a decade ago.

Concluding remarks

In the two indigenous areas studied, there are records of SBE victims who did not receive medical attention, including child patients. Access to healthcare was better in the Upper Rio Solimões district, in which i) a public service for pre-hospital emergency transport using motorboats is available; ii) there are more options for hospitals with regular antivenom supply in seven urban areas within its coverage area, compared to only one in the Upper Rio Negro SIHD; iii) the navigability of the Solimoes River and its tributaries is better than that of the Negro River basin. Sociocultural barriers to healthcare in both areas may include resistance to being transferred from their territories and having to stay away from their families. Nevertheless, the lack of an adapted structure of the health units, of interpreters and of training and sensitivity of the care team to guarantee dietary and behavioral interdictions that are required, and of an indigenous caregiver in the health units, still generate resistance on the part of indigenous people to seeking treatment in hospitals.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies.

(DOC)

S1 Data. Study database used in the analysis.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the support of the coordinators and professionals who work in the Upper Rio Solimões and Upper Rio Negro health districts, and of the presidents and counselors of these health districts. We would like to thank the technicians of the Health Research Coordination of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (COSAU/CNPq) and the National Indigenous Foundation (FUNAI) for providing the permits to carry out this study.

Data Availability

Data underlying the findings are fully available in the manuscript supplementary files.

Funding Statement

J.S. and W.M. are funded by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq productivity scholarships). W.M. and J.S. were funded by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Amazonas (PRÓ-ESTADO, call 011/2021 - PCGP/FAPEAM, call 010/2021 - ÁREAS PRIORITÁRIAS, call 023/2022 - INICIATIVA AMAZÔNIA +10) and by the Ministry of Health, Brazil (proposal No. 733781/19-035). A.S.F. and F.M. are funded by Fiocruz (Inova scholarships). A.S.F., F.M. and M.L. and F.M. were funded via Programa Inova Fiocruz and VPAAPS/Fiocruz, project “Contribuição para o desenvolvimento de estratégias para o fortalecimento do SasiSUS, considerando as vulnerabilidades emergentes e reemergentes em saúde”. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Snakebite envenoming: A strategy for prevention and control [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. [cited 2022 Aug 10] p. 70. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/355282. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fan HW, Monteiro WM. History and perspectives on how to ensure antivenom accessibility in the most remote areas in Brazil. Toxicon. 2018. Sep 1;151:15–23. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2018.06.070 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Monteiro WM, de Farias AS, Val F, Neto AVS, Sachett A, Lacerda M, et al. Providing Antivenom Treatment Access to All Brazilian Amazon Indigenous Areas: ‘Every Life has Equal Value.’ Toxins. 2020. Dec 5;12(12):772. doi: 10.3390/toxins12120772 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Cristino JS, Salazar GM, Machado VA, Honorato E, Farias AS, Vissoci JRN, et al. A painful journey to antivenom: The therapeutic itinerary of snakebite patients in the Brazilian Amazon (The QUALISnake Study). PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021. Mar 4;15(3):e0009245. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009245 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sapkota S, Pandey DP, Dhakal GP, Gurung DB. Knowledge of health workers on snakes and snakebite management and treatment seeking behavior of snakebite victims in Bhutan. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020. Nov 30;14(11):e0008793. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008793 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tupetz A, Barcenas LK, Phillips AJ, Vissoci JRN, Gerardo CJ. BITES study: A qualitative analysis among emergency medicine physicians on snake envenomation management practices. PLOS ONE. 2022. Jan 7;17(1):e0262215. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262215 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Brazil. Ministério da Justiça e Segurança Pública. Fundação Nacional do Índio. Último censo do IBGE registrou quase 900 mil indígenas no país; dados serão atualizados em 2022. Accessed November 7, 2022. Available from: https://www.gov.br/funai/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/2022-02/ultimo-censo-do-ibge-registrou-quase-900-mil-indigenas-no-pais-dados-serao-atualizados-em-2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Basta PC, Orellana JDY, Arantes R. Perfil epidemiológico dos povos indígenas no Brasil: notas sobre agravos selecionados. In: Garnelo L, Pontes AL. Saúde Indígena: uma introdução ao tema. Brasília: MEC-SECADI, 2012; 60–107 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rios DP, Malacarne J, Alves LC, Sant’Anna CC, Camacho LA, Basta PC. [Tuberculosis in indigenous peoples in the Brazilian Amazon: an epidemiological study in the Upper Rio Negro region]. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2013. Jan;33(1):22–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Meireles BM, de Souza Sampaio V, Monteiro WM, Gonçalves MJF. Factors associated with malaria in indigenous populations: A retrospective study from 2007 to 2016. PLoS One. 2020; 15:e0240741. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lima JT, Gennari SM, Soares HS, Minervino AH, Malheiros AF, Marques FS, et al. Serodiagnosis of visceral and cutaneous leishmaniasis in human and canine populations living in Indigenous Reserves in the Brazilian Amazon Region. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2017. Jan-Feb;50(1):61–66. doi: 10.1590/0037-8682-0377-2016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Martins M, Lacerda MVG, Monteiro WM, Moura MAS, Santos ECS, Saraceni V, et al. Progression of the load of waterborne and intestinal parasitic diseases in the State of Amazonas. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop [Internet]. 2015; 48:42–54. doi: 10.1590/0037-8682-0162-2014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Santos EF, Silva ÂAO, Leony LM, Freitas NEM, Daltro RT, Regis-Silva CG, et al. (2020) Acute Chagas disease in Brazil from 2001 to 2018: A nationwide spatiotemporal analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 14(8): e0008445. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008445 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Freitas HS, Medina NH, Lopes MF, Soares OE, Teodoro MT, Ramalho KR, et al. Trachoma in Indigenous Settlements in Brazil, 2000–2008. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2016. Dec;23(6):354–359. doi: 10.3109/09286586.2015.1131305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Imbiriba EB, Basta PC, Pereira Edos S, Levino A, Garnelo L. [Leprosy in indigenous populations of Amazonas State, Brazil: an epidemiological study in the counties of Autazes, Eirunepé and São Gabriel da Cachoeira (2000 to 2005)]. Cad Saude Publica. 2009. May;25(5):972–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Taylor E, Aguilar-Ancori EG, Banyard AC, Abel I, Mantini-Briggs C, Briggs CL, et al. The Amazonian Tropical Bites Research Initiative, a hope for resolving zoonotic neglected tropical diseases in the One Health era. Int Health. 2022. Jul 27:ihac048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Feitosa EL, Sampaio VS, Salinas JL, Queiroz AM, da Silva IM, Gomes AA, et al. Older Age and Time to Medical Assistance Are Associated with Severity and Mortality of Snakebites in the Brazilian Amazon: A Case-Control Study. PLoS One. 2015. Jul 13;10(7):e0132237. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132237 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Silva Souza A, Sachett JAG, Alcântara JA, Freire M, Alecrim MDGC, Lacerda M, et al. Snakebites as cause of deaths in the Western Brazilian Amazon: Why and who dies? Deaths from snakebites in the Amazon. Toxicon. 2018. Apr;145:15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2018.02.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Goodman LA. Snowball Sampling. Ann Math Stat. 1961. Mar;32(1):148–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Silva AM, Colombini M, Moura-da-Silva AM, Souza RM, Monteiro WM, Bernarde PS. Ethno-knowledge and attitudes regarding snakebites in the Alto Juruá region, Western Brazilian Amazonia. Toxicon [Internet]. 2019. Dec;171:66–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Salazar GKM, Saturnino Cristino J, Vilhena Silva-Neto A, Seabra Farias A, Alcântara JA, Azevedo Machado V, et al. Snakebites in "Invisible Populations": A cross-sectional survey in riverine populations in the remote western Brazilian Amazon. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021. Sep 9;15(9):e0009758. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009758 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Silva AL, Nunes A, Macedo AV. Crianças indígenas: ensaios antropológicos. São Paulo: Global, 2002, 280 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Le Geyt J, Pach S, Gutiérrez JM, Habib AG, Maduwage KP, Hardcastle TC, et al. Paediatric snakebite envenoming: recognition and management of cases. Arch Dis Child. 2021. Jan;106(1):14–19. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2020-319428 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Oliveira IS, Pucca MB, Cerni FA, Vieira S, Sachett J, Seabra de Farias A, et al. Snakebite envenoming in Brazilian children: clinical aspects, management and outcomes. J Trop Pediatr. 2023. Feb 6;69(2):fmad010. doi: 10.1093/tropej/fmad010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Farias AS, Nascimento EF, Gomes Filho MR, Feliz AC, Arévalo MC, Adrião AAX, et al. Building an explanatory model for snakebite envenoming care in the Brazilian Amazon from the indigenous caregivers’ perspective. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2023, in press. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011172 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Jauregui X, Clavo ZM, Jovel EM, Pardo-de-Santayana M. "Plantas con madre": plants that teach and guide in the shamanic initiation process in the East-Central Peruvian Amazon. J Ethnopharmacol. 2011. Apr 12;134(3):739–52. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2011.01.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Murta F, Strand E, Farias AS, Rocha F, Santos AC, Rondon EAT, et al. “Two Cultures in Favor of a Dying Patient”: Experiences of Health Care Professionals Providing Snakebite Care to Indigenous Peoples in the Brazilian Amazon. Toxins. 2023; 15(3):194. doi: 10.3390/toxins15030194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ministério da Saúde. Rede de Atenção às Urgências e Emergências [cited 2/27/2023]. Available from: https://www.gov.br/saude/pt-br/assuntos/saude-de-a-a-z/s/samu-192/rede-de-atencao-as-urgencias-e-emergencias-1. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ministério da Saúde. DSEI Alto Rio Solimões implanta SAMU da Saúde Indígena [cited 2/27/2022]. Available from: https://www.gov.br/saude/pt-br/assuntos/sesai_noticias/dsei-alto-rio-solimoes-implanta-samu-da-saude-indigena. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Beck TP, Tupetz A, Farias AS, Silva-Neto A, Rocha T, Smith ER, et al. Mapping of clinical management resources for snakebites and other animal envenomings in the Brazilian Amazon. Toxicon X. 2022. Sep 16;16:100137. doi: 10.1016/j.toxcx.2022.100137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Garnelo L, Sampaio SS, Pontes Al. Atenção diferenciada: a formação técnica de agentes indígenas de saúde do Alto Rio Negro. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FIOCRUZ, 2019, 163 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gomes VO, Reis DA. Nursing activities in the care of the indigenous population of the base pole of the interior of the Amazonas. Rev Nursing. 2021; 24 (281): 6000. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Santos MM, Cruz KJ, Sá LC, Batista CC, Aguiar EM, Nogueira AM. Assistência prestada pelo Sistema Único de Saúde de Teresina à população indígena do Maranhão, 2011: um estudo descritivo. Epidemiol Serv Saude. 2016. Jan-Mar;25(1):127–136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Silva CB. Profissionais de saúde em contexto indígena: Os desafios para uma atuação intercultural e dialógica. ANTROPOS Rev Antropol. 2013; 5(6). [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lorenzo CFG. Desafios para uma bioética clínica interétnica: reflexões a partir da política nacional de saúde indígena. Rev Bioética. 2011;19:329–342. [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011485.r001

Decision Letter 0

Abdulrazaq G Habib, José María Gutiérrez

13 Apr 2023

Dear Dr Monteiro,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Snakebite Envenomations and Access to Treatment in Communities of Two Indigenous Areas of the Western Brazilian Amazon: a Cross-Sectional Study" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Abdulrazaq G. Habib

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

José María Gutiérrez

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: - the study objectives could be made clearer

- the study design is appropriate for the stated objectives

- no clear explanation was given for the sample size

- there was statistical analysis to support conclusions

- The ethical concerns were well addressed

Reviewer #2: No comments under the methods as the manuscript has well described the objectives and appropriate study design, selection of samples, defining population and appropriate analysis. No ethical issues have been noted since the authors have obtained the ethical approval.

Reviewer #3: • This study has a clear objective and reports relevant data on SBE on two indigenous populations. However, it is not clear how the estimation of underreporting was conducted from a statistical point of view. The characteristics of those who did not receive medical attention after the snakebite are clearly stated, but it is not clear if all of them are not-reported cases. I recommend including or changing the aim of the study to a more descriptive perspective on the management of SBE in two indigenous populations.

• The authors need to clarify if data collection was conducted using a survey or an interview (See lines 212 and 233).

• Lines 256 to 282 provide a detailed description of some characteristics of these populations; however, I recommend including part of this information in the introduction section. Also, it can be used in the methods section to briefly describe variables such as type of housing, occupation, and the characteristics of the place where the snakebite occurred.

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: - the analysis matched the analysis plan

- the results were clearly and completely presented

- However, the Tables will need some improvements

Reviewer #2: No specific comments results, analysis, presentation, figures and images.

Reviewer #3: • Tables 1 and 2 allow an adequate description of the population. Moreover, Table 3 describes relevant information on the use of indigenous medicine as a treatment by study participants.

• I recommend including relevant data from Table 4 in the text.

• Pictures in Figure 3 can be reduced and present just those that illustrate the housing, transportation, and lifestyle characteristics of the study population.

• The use of the abbreviations SBE and SBEs is confusing throughout the whole document. Please review.

• Line 506: I assume the abbreviation AV refers to antivenoms, as it was not previously mentioned in the document.

• Line 339: is the age range 49-59 or 40-59 years old, as stated in Table 1?

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: - conclusion supported the data presented

- there were no clearly stated limitations of the study

- the authors discussed the data appropriately

- the public health relevance of the study outcome was not clearly stated

Reviewer #2: Yes agree. Conclusions were drawn from the analyzed results. Limitation of the study have been discussed adequately.

Reviewer #3: • Study limitations are not clearly stated in the document.

• A discussion on the generalizability and implications of results for the indigenous population is not presented.

• The conclusion does not refer to the relevance of study findings to promote and recommend actions to access antivenoms soon after a snakebite occurs and to bring traditional medicine and Western medical treatment together. As stated in lines 484-487.

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: - there will be a need for English language editing as the grammatical style of the authors made understanding their thought flow difficult.

Reviewer #2: None

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: Comments

General comments: This is an important topic and is relevant in generating data on snakebite envenoming, given that hospital data alone does not tell the whole story of SBE globally. However, below are a few specific comments that should help strengthen the manuscript's quality.

Specific comments:

Introduction: The recount of the existing literature on the global burden of SBE, policies to mitigate it, local Brazilian Amazonian literature on the burden, paucity of data on SBE, antivenom crises, and barriers to access to medical facility care regarding snakebite is adequate. However, I struggled to understand the specific objectives of the study from the stated study aim.

Aim – page 7, lines 132-134: The specific objectives of this study may need to be modified to improve their specificity, clarity, measurability and reproducibility. This way, the reader knows the information to expect in the results and discussion sections of the paper. Thus, I offer the following suggestions.

(1) The statement "to estimate SBE underreporting" may need to be modified: Given that some of the participants in this study accessed orthodox care, which should have been documented and, as such, are reported cases, it will be inappropriate to describe them as under-reporting. I suggest rephrasing this objective, e.g. to read: "to estimate SBE reported by the community-dwellers….."

(2) For clarity, I suggest that you include that you are "assessing participants' health care seeking behaviour following a snakebite".

(3) Analyze barriers that prevent victims from obtaining healthcare in indigenous communities located in two indigenous health districts, in the Western Brazilian Amazon.

Methods: How did the authors arrive at a sample size of 187?

Results:

1. Table 1, schooling the second and third columns don't total 100%. Similarly, cross-check occupation, religion, etc. Please cross-check the data in all tables.

2. Table 4: the legend to this table is confusing and should be rephrased to reflect that it contains factors associated with lack of access to healthcare.

Discussion:

(1) What were the limitations of this study?

(2) There were no clear statements about the policy implications of the study's outcome.

Reviewer #2: Include the total number of people included in this study 187 under the "Methods/principal findings" of the ABSTRACT.

Reviewer #3: This study details characteristics and information on how SBE is treated by two indigenous communities, as well as different factors that can facilitate or difficult access to treatment. However, the objective of this study is just a part of the main focus of the discussion observed throughout the document.

In addition, I suggest analyzing study limitations and the possibility of generalized results to these indigenous communities.

A final word of advice, since I had trouble following some sentences, I recommend a detailed review of the manuscript for grammar consistency.

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Godpower Chinedu Michael

Reviewer #2: Yes: Kalana Maduwage

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Attachment

Submitted filename: COMMENTS.docx

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011485.r003

Decision Letter 1

Abdulrazaq G Habib, José María Gutiérrez

17 Jun 2023

Dear Dr Monteiro,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Snakebite Envenomations and Access to Treatment in Communities of Two Indigenous Areas of the Western Brazilian Amazon: a Cross-Sectional Study" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Abdulrazaq G. Habib

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

José María Gutiérrez

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: How did the authors estimate the sample size?

Reviewer #2: -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? Yes

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? Yes

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested? Yes

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested? Yes

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? Yes

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? Yes

Reviewer #3: The population is clearly stated and described; for me, the objective of this study is to describe the lack of access to healthcare in these two populations, as stated in lines 287-292, and not an estimation of underreporting.

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The issues highlighted in my comments about the Tables were not addressed

Reviewer #2: -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? Yes

-Are the results clearly and completely presented? Yes

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity? Yes

Reviewer #3: - Line 338: SBEs were reported or happened?

- Review lines 353 and 354

- Review the words "high" in line 430, and "even though" in line 434.

- Some ideas seem to be incomplete: lines 438-440, 454-456, 501-503

- Lines 508-515: review how these very important ideas correspond to the paragraph.

- Line 478: I assume the abbreviation AV refers to antivenoms, as it was not previously mentioned in the document.

- Throughout the document review the use of "peoples"; people is a plural form and does not requiere the "s". I suggest using population instead in most cases.

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? Yes

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? Yes

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study? Yes

-Is public health relevance addressed? Yes

Reviewer #3: - Study limitations are still not clearly stated in the document.

- A discussion on the generalizability and implications of results for the indigenous population is not presented.

- Lines 543-547: This conclusion does not seem to come from the study design.

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I agree with all the modifications have been done to the revised version of the manuscript and I would recommend to accept this after the editorial decision.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: 1) I am not sure in PLos journals, authors are not allowed to highlight corrections of queries from reviewers in their manuscript.

2) After painstakingly, going through the revised manuscript, i found that the authors did not respond to the comments regarding the issues I raised during the first submission.

3) Without any response from the authors I am constrained to recommend a revision

Reviewer #2: I agree with all the modifications have been done to the revised version of the manuscript and I would recommend to accept this after the editorial decision.

Reviewer #3: I suggest reviewing the objective as I still consider the aim was to present data on access to healthcare more than identifying underreporting. In addition, I suggest analyzing study limitations.

Grammar consistency is better in this reviewed version, however, I still had trouble following some

sentences.

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Godpower Michael

Reviewer #2: Yes: Kalana Maduwage

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011485.r005

Decision Letter 2

Abdulrazaq G Habib, José María Gutiérrez

27 Jun 2023

Dear Dr Monteiro,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Snakebite Envenomations and Access to Treatment in Communities of Two Indigenous Areas of the Western Brazilian Amazon: a Cross-Sectional Study' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Abdulrazaq G. Habib

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

José María Gutiérrez

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Godpower Chinedu Michael

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011485.r006

Acceptance letter

Abdulrazaq G Habib, José María Gutiérrez

8 Jul 2023

Dear Dr. Monteiro,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Snakebite Envenomations and Access to Treatment in Communities of Two Indigenous Areas of the Western Brazilian Amazon: a Cross-Sectional Study," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies.

    (DOC)

    S1 Data. Study database used in the analysis.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: COMMENTS.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter R2, survey.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data underlying the findings are fully available in the manuscript supplementary files.


    Articles from PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES